This started as a simple landrace article and spiraled into... well, you'll see.
While the graphic above is of dubious scientific quality, the overarching message is clear: Cannabis has been with the human race since antiquity & has evolved alongside us & often with our help--for better or worse.
In honor of this classic stoner holiday, here's a list (or two) of exotic and mostly extinct landrace marijuana strains to drool over. While the stuff today is most certainly stronger in terms of sheer THC content, there's something special about these '60s & '70s throwbacks, which were 100% pure Sativa or Indica (ehh, more on that below) & were native to their various continents. Yields, pest resistance & time to flowering were widely variable, which is largely why the hybrids were created: For the grower's benefit. Said pioneer growers should've done more to preserve the OGs in my not-so-humble opinion... especially when half the bag was seeds in the days before sinsemilla! (Sin = "without"; semillia = "seed").
Savory Sativas ❤
.jpg) |
| Iconic Indicas 💜 |
Sativa landraces grow naturally in equatorial regions like Africa, India, Asian countries like Thailand & Vietnam, Latin American countries like Colombia & Mexico & island regions like Jamaica/Hawaii. Meanwhile, Indicas are native to the Middle/Near East & grow well in the low-lying valleys of the Hindu Kush region, Morocco, Turkey, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan & Egypt. They were traditionally used to make hashish due to their opium-like effects & copious resin production. The vast majority of today's commercial bud is Hybrid, containing varying percentages of both Indica & Sativa genes. With the advent of autoflowering plants, Ruderalis genes have now been introduced into the commercial ganja supply as well. Again, for better or for worse. You be the judge.
While advances in growing techniques & technology improved THC content for stoners, most of this hybridization was done for the grower's benefit: to produce faster flowering, more pest-resistance & bigger yields. One could liken modern indoor sinsemilla weed to a "GMO" as it's been altered so much from the sparse, lanky outdoor landrace stuff of yesteryear. But that's not necessarily bad. In the '60s & '70s, American weed came almost entirely from other countries & was dried/cured using traditional methods, such as burying it underground to induce "fermentation" or alter the color (see: Santa Marta Gold). That's IF it was cured at all. It was almost always compressed into bricks for transport, full of seeds & much lower in THC than today's weed. While quality stuff did exist back then, the typical "mids" were closer to the strength of today's hemp flower, containing between 1-3% THC.
While plenty of older 'heads from the Cheech & Chong days swear the old stuff was better, it's likely a result of rose-colored glasses & good ol' tolerance. Nothing will ever compare to your first high, even if it was low-level homegrown & you're now smokin' top-shelf Indo. Also, questions about how cannabis affects the teenage brain could account for why some of us treated pot like crack and overdid it only to have it "turn on us" later. (And most of us did start in our teens, unfortunately). It's believed to have a massively different impact on the developing brain than the adult brain, which uhh, explains some things.
I was smoking Mexican brick well into the 2000s and lemme tell ya: it was NOT better than modern weed. It produced a headache & not much else & was frequently wet/moldy. Some of it contained hair & other nasties. But that likely had as much to do with growing/drying/transport methods as genetics. Then again, today's greedy growers often use plant growth regulators & other poisons that make the finished product a total question mark in terms of short- and long-term safety risks, so every era has its issues. (See: the Paraquat Pot of the Reaganite '80s).
Fake buds from the prohibition days {vomits softly}
The biggest concern with today's weed (yes, even the stuff sold in medical dispensaries) is what might be used to grow it. Or stop its growth, as is the case with PGR's. Paclobutrazol, daminozide & a familiar-sounding one--chlormequat chloride--are a few of the PGRs (Plant Growth Regulators) you may encounter in the commercial/legal bud industry today. These hormones are added purely for profit motive to increase yields while preventing plants from growing too tall in hydro & other indoor setups. While there are no hard-and-fast methods for spotting PGR bud, I find that it kinda resembles those mystery buds sold legally in High Times & Cannabis Culture Magazine back in the pre-legalization days: more orange than green, too many pistils, solid & compact... a little too compact. It almost looks like a mini brick in each bud. No space between the folds of the leaves.
.jpg)
Cannabis shouldn't be the shape/consistency of dung beetle balls.
PGRs are used to increase both yields and nicotine production in the tobacco plant, which is inherently carcinogenic (Group 1 Carcinogen) due to its radioactivity & the presence of poisons like benzene & formaldehyde. But the use of high-phosphate fertilizers is also thought to make the plant more cancerous by increasing the dosage of alpha radiation in the end product. Any thinking person has to wonder: are equally toxic ferts & "-cides" (pesti, fungi, herbi) being added to today's pot? Then there's the whole "spray-on terpene" thing which... guys, look. I get that this is a for-profit venture, but shit's getting ridiculous. In the quest for maximum terps & bag appeal, we're making one of the safest and most versatile medicines in human history potentially UN-safe. This defeats the purpose for all but the most shamelessly addicted users who don't GAF if their lungs turn to stone & their brains dry-rot right along with their little parched, cotton-y mouths. 🌵👄
Furthermore, ingredients that are safe to eat (i.e. Vitamin E acetate) can be deadly when inhaled, so assuming that food-grade terps are safe to smoke/vape is simply not an accurate assumption. Nobody who actually uses weed for medical or mental health reasons wants this mutant junk in their bowl--any of it. Worse, you're flirting with getting regulators involved, and they are overwhelmingly politicians rather than scientists or farmers. If the past 80+ years of probition taught us anything, it's that these types should stick to what they know (i.e. sniffing children's hair & kickin' it on Epstein Island) & stay far away from weed & all other drugs, right? Right?! Bueller?
.jpg)
My local dispensaries frequently sell weed they claim is a landrace strain, but how would customers know the difference? This state's medical mj regulations are far too lax so there's no telling what you're getting. Rumor has it that growers here just slap a popular name on each pound based on what's likely to sell. I find that unconscionable, personally. And as stated, that's the least of my worries with this plant.
That said, I've bought a couple of the alleged landrace Sativas & they DID blow my head off in the stimulation department. Chocolate Thai was my fave. Not a true landrace but def hard to find these days. I'd go back & buy that in bulk in a heartbeat... whatever it was. As for my all-time favorite strains, that honor goes to Golden Goat, Zkittlez, original NYC Diesel & Chernobyl--all hybrids. (Womp, womp).
Enter: Afghanica?
As a final note, some cannabis experts including the legendary George Cervantes, believe there's actually FOUR main types of cannabis: Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis & Afghanica. In this interesting paradigm, the plants we call "Indicas" w/ the short stature, broad leaves & relaxing effects are actually properly called Afghanicas due to their native region of Afghanistan while "Sativa" referred to the narrow-leaved hemp/ditch weed that produces seed & fiber but not THC. Meanwhile, "Indica" encompasses ALL psychoactive subspecies of cannabis including what we now refer to as "Sativa": the Eurasian/equatorial plants with the soaring head high & creative, psychedelice effects. (And what was Ruderalis under this system, chopped liver?)
Thankfully a real taxonomist came along circa the early 2000's and put this all to rest with genetic testing. It is as follows:
 |
| "Woodstock Weed" = Weaksauce. Sorry, aging hippies who claim old weed was better. |
Modern vs. Old School: Which Was Better?
Pick Your Fighter: The Brick vs. the Bud
Pick Your Fighter: The Brick vs. the Bud
While advances in growing techniques & technology improved THC content for stoners, most of this hybridization was done for the grower's benefit: to produce faster flowering, more pest-resistance & bigger yields. One could liken modern indoor sinsemilla weed to a "GMO" as it's been altered so much from the sparse, lanky outdoor landrace stuff of yesteryear. But that's not necessarily bad. In the '60s & '70s, American weed came almost entirely from other countries & was dried/cured using traditional methods, such as burying it underground to induce "fermentation" or alter the color (see: Santa Marta Gold). That's IF it was cured at all. It was almost always compressed into bricks for transport, full of seeds & much lower in THC than today's weed. While quality stuff did exist back then, the typical "mids" were closer to the strength of today's hemp flower, containing between 1-3% THC.
While plenty of older 'heads from the Cheech & Chong days swear the old stuff was better, it's likely a result of rose-colored glasses & good ol' tolerance. Nothing will ever compare to your first high, even if it was low-level homegrown & you're now smokin' top-shelf Indo. Also, questions about how cannabis affects the teenage brain could account for why some of us treated pot like crack and overdid it only to have it "turn on us" later. (And most of us did start in our teens, unfortunately). It's believed to have a massively different impact on the developing brain than the adult brain, which uhh, explains some things.
I was smoking Mexican brick well into the 2000s and lemme tell ya: it was NOT better than modern weed. It produced a headache & not much else & was frequently wet/moldy. Some of it contained hair & other nasties. But that likely had as much to do with growing/drying/transport methods as genetics. Then again, today's greedy growers often use plant growth regulators & other poisons that make the finished product a total question mark in terms of short- and long-term safety risks, so every era has its issues. (See: the Paraquat Pot of the Reaganite '80s).
Fake buds from the prohibition days {vomits softly}
Today's Bud: All That Glitters... ✨
Dank or stank? Buds should look like flowers, not doo-doo balls.
Dank or stank? Buds should look like flowers, not doo-doo balls.
.jpg)
Cannabis shouldn't be the shape/consistency of dung beetle balls.
PGRs are used to increase both yields and nicotine production in the tobacco plant, which is inherently carcinogenic (Group 1 Carcinogen) due to its radioactivity & the presence of poisons like benzene & formaldehyde. But the use of high-phosphate fertilizers is also thought to make the plant more cancerous by increasing the dosage of alpha radiation in the end product. Any thinking person has to wonder: are equally toxic ferts & "-cides" (pesti, fungi, herbi) being added to today's pot? Then there's the whole "spray-on terpene" thing which... guys, look. I get that this is a for-profit venture, but shit's getting ridiculous. In the quest for maximum terps & bag appeal, we're making one of the safest and most versatile medicines in human history potentially UN-safe. This defeats the purpose for all but the most shamelessly addicted users who don't GAF if their lungs turn to stone & their brains dry-rot right along with their little parched, cotton-y mouths. 🌵👄
Furthermore, ingredients that are safe to eat (i.e. Vitamin E acetate) can be deadly when inhaled, so assuming that food-grade terps are safe to smoke/vape is simply not an accurate assumption. Nobody who actually uses weed for medical or mental health reasons wants this mutant junk in their bowl--any of it. Worse, you're flirting with getting regulators involved, and they are overwhelmingly politicians rather than scientists or farmers. If the past 80+ years of probition taught us anything, it's that these types should stick to what they know (i.e. sniffing children's hair & kickin' it on Epstein Island) & stay far away from weed & all other drugs, right? Right?! Bueller?
.jpg)
See the diff?
(I fuckin' digress. This is 4/20, dammit! We're gonna celebrate the evolution of cannabis if it kills us! And at this rate it might!) My local dispensaries frequently sell weed they claim is a landrace strain, but how would customers know the difference? This state's medical mj regulations are far too lax so there's no telling what you're getting. Rumor has it that growers here just slap a popular name on each pound based on what's likely to sell. I find that unconscionable, personally. And as stated, that's the least of my worries with this plant.
That said, I've bought a couple of the alleged landrace Sativas & they DID blow my head off in the stimulation department. Chocolate Thai was my fave. Not a true landrace but def hard to find these days. I'd go back & buy that in bulk in a heartbeat... whatever it was. As for my all-time favorite strains, that honor goes to Golden Goat, Zkittlez, original NYC Diesel & Chernobyl--all hybrids. (Womp, womp).
Enter: Afghanica?
%20(1)%20(1).jpg) |
| The stoner community has questions. |
As a final note, some cannabis experts including the legendary George Cervantes, believe there's actually FOUR main types of cannabis: Sativa, Indica, Ruderalis & Afghanica. In this interesting paradigm, the plants we call "Indicas" w/ the short stature, broad leaves & relaxing effects are actually properly called Afghanicas due to their native region of Afghanistan while "Sativa" referred to the narrow-leaved hemp/ditch weed that produces seed & fiber but not THC. Meanwhile, "Indica" encompasses ALL psychoactive subspecies of cannabis including what we now refer to as "Sativa": the Eurasian/equatorial plants with the soaring head high & creative, psychedelice effects. (And what was Ruderalis under this system, chopped liver?)
Thankfully a real taxonomist came along circa the early 2000's and put this all to rest with genetic testing. It is as follows:
Sativa > "C. sativa ssp. sativa" aka "Narrow-Leaf Hemp"
Indica > 4 subspecies; 2 psychoactive (see below)*
Indica > 4 subspecies; 2 psychoactive (see below)*
Ruderalis > "C. sativa ssp. spontanea"; likely feral ancestor to both other types.
*Indica SUBSPECIES
C. indica ssp. indica: High THC, low CBD narrow-leafed plants today known as "Sativas". Effects are stimulating & psychedelic & include strains like the Haze family, Durban Poison, Acapulco Gold, Jack Herer, Maui Wowie & Jamaican Lamb's Bread.
C. indica ssp. afghanica: High-CBD psychoactive plant native to Afghanistan/Pakistan w/ short stature & broad leaves. Today known as "Indicas". Effects are mellow & analgesic. Includes strains like the Kush family, Romulan, Blueberry, Northern Lights & most purple-colored strains
C. indica ssp. chinensis: East Asian hemp plants with broad leaves (BLH). Potential for psychoactivity but cultivated for fiber & seed only.
C. indica ssp. kafiristanica: Feral ancestor to Narrow-Leaf Drug (NLD) hemp that grew wild in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
TL;DR - All the psychoactive weed we smoke today is accurately termed Indica, which has 4 subspecies. True "Sativa" is a (non-psychoactive) Narrow-Leaf Hemp grown for fiber & seed, while "Ruderalis" is likely some feral ancestor of BOTH species that originated in Siberia/Russia, though it's now extinct(!!!) Only 2 of the Indica subspecies--spp. Indica & spp. Afghanica--are psychoactive: these are the ones we wrongly call "Sativa" and "Indica" today. The other two aren't meaningfully psychoactive.
Modern "Sativa" is actually Indica, and
today's "Indica" is really Afghanica.
I tried my best to color-code this for y'all. Happy 4/20!
*Indica SUBSPECIES
C. indica ssp. indica: High THC, low CBD narrow-leafed plants today known as "Sativas". Effects are stimulating & psychedelic & include strains like the Haze family, Durban Poison, Acapulco Gold, Jack Herer, Maui Wowie & Jamaican Lamb's Bread.
C. indica ssp. afghanica: High-CBD psychoactive plant native to Afghanistan/Pakistan w/ short stature & broad leaves. Today known as "Indicas". Effects are mellow & analgesic. Includes strains like the Kush family, Romulan, Blueberry, Northern Lights & most purple-colored strains
C. indica ssp. chinensis: East Asian hemp plants with broad leaves (BLH). Potential for psychoactivity but cultivated for fiber & seed only.
C. indica ssp. kafiristanica: Feral ancestor to Narrow-Leaf Drug (NLD) hemp that grew wild in Afghanistan & Pakistan.
TL;DR - All the psychoactive weed we smoke today is accurately termed Indica, which has 4 subspecies. True "Sativa" is a (non-psychoactive) Narrow-Leaf Hemp grown for fiber & seed, while "Ruderalis" is likely some feral ancestor of BOTH species that originated in Siberia/Russia, though it's now extinct(!!!) Only 2 of the Indica subspecies--spp. Indica & spp. Afghanica--are psychoactive: these are the ones we wrongly call "Sativa" and "Indica" today. The other two aren't meaningfully psychoactive.
Modern "Sativa" is actually Indica, and
today's "Indica" is really Afghanica.
What does this change for the average stoner? Absolutely nada. The terms Sativa & Indica are so ingrained in the culture that budtenders, websites like Leafly and others aren't likely to adopt the "true" names, leaving that up to taxonomists & geneticists. We know "Sativa" refers to the narrow-leaved plants that grow tall & produce cerebral effects, while "Indicas" are short, stout & full of relaxing CBD/N/G, making them great for pain, insomnia & as a precursor to hashish.
I for one never knew there were this many offshoots and variants of the cannabis plant! My dad talked about "ditch weed" that grew everywhere in the old days, claiming it was a whole different plant than the stuff that gets you high. He was largely right--I was under the impression that growing techniques were the ONLY thing separating "hemp" and "cannabis", with all plants of this species having the capacity to produce high THC levels if grown right. And who knew there was a shorter, broad-leafed hemp variant (C. indica spp. chinensis) in Asia?
Furthermore I just learned there was no debate about the taxonomy of cannabis until the '70s when it arose as a legal defense for a person charged with possession of "Cannabis Sativa" but his lawyer argued it was "C. Indica." Clever. Another interesting factoid is that THC vs. CBD-rich plants tend to be predictably dark (THC) or light green (CBD) according to this in-depth study with 'hybrids' falling in the middle of the dark/light green spectrum. This certainly helps make things less confusing when it comes to telling these babies apart, and we need all the help we can get apparently. Sheesh. I feel a Pt. 2 in my future.
I tried my best to color-code this for y'all. Happy 4/20!
😶🌫 Which of the 2 OG's below are you puttin in your dream pipe: the tall doll from Nepal, or the (nothing rhymes with "Sheberghan")?
 |
| Towering "Sativa" landrace from Nepal. ❤ |
 |
| Sheberghan, an "Indica" landrace from North Afghanistan 💜 |
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment