INDICA VS SATIVA

Today, some 12,000 years after the first harvest, the global cannabis industry is worth an estimated $65 billion. Modern-day consumers living in places where cannabis is legal are spoiled for choice—there are now more than 700 cannabis strains to choose from, including colorfully-named cultivars such as Cat Piss, Purple Monkey Balls, and Unicorn Poop.

But for all this remarkable diversity, cannabis goods primarily fall into just one of two categories: indica or sativa—each with purportedly distinct psychoactive effects.

People think that if you smoke an indica, it’s like taking a Xanax and you’re going to be falling asleep, whereas a sativa is almost like doing a line of cocaine and you’re going to be jacked up and hyper. This dichotomous labeling system is deeply entrenched among consumers, be they in a California dispensary, Dutch ‘coffee shop,’ or Bangkok smoking lounge.

However, mounting scientific evidence suggests that these labels are largely meaningless, with no significant chemical or genetic differences between the two—implying that consumers may not be getting the specific effects they seek. The idea of indica-sativa is heavily misconstrued.

What’s in a name?    

It’s believed that the terms ‘indica’ and ‘sativa’ originated in the late 18th century, when French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed classifying cannabis plants by their physical appearance. Indicas, he noted, were shorter with woody stems and thick stubby leaves. By contrast, sativas were taller with fibrous stems and feathery thin leaves.

But we can’t simply use the way a plant looks to predict how it will affect the body and mind. Rather, the way a drug makes you feel is due to its chemistry.

Moreover, cannabis growers, thanks in large part to the long illicit nature of their industry, aren’t bound by any rules when it comes to naming their cultivars—unlike vintners, cheesemakers, or apple growers who must abide by strict naming conventions. “I could go grab random cannabis seeds from someone and call it Blue Dream or Girl Scout Cookies. I could even give it my own new name that I make up, and call it an indica, sativa, hybrid, or whatever I want.

This explains why, when he analyzed the chemical makeup of more than 90,000 commercial cannabis flower samples collected from six U.S. states for a 2022 study, he wasn’t surprised to discover that a product’s label poorly reflected its chemistry.

Sativas, for instance, are generally thought to make users feel energetic and euphoric. But, compared with indicas, sativa strains don’t necessarily contain higher amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the main compound that produces the cannabis high. 

Their findings echo a study published a year earlier, which analyzed nearly 300 cannabis strains. There’s certainly no scientific evidence that there’s any consistent difference between samples with those two labels. It’s all kind of nebulous.

Part of the problem can be traced to the extensive cross-breeding that has occurred over time. So while the original indica plant, indigenous to the Middle East, might have differed genetically and chemically-speaking to its sativa cousin from central Asia, “things are now too mixed up” for there to be a clear distinction, says Myles.

New and different labels

For better accuracy, researchers suggest that cannabis be classified according to its chemical, rather than physical, attributes. Every plant contains some 540 chemical substances, including more than 144 different cannabinoids—compounds such as THC and cannabidiol (CBD) that produce specific medicinal and psychoactive effects.

This alternative system would see labels listing the key compounds present in a particular cultivar, alongside their respective amounts—similar to the ‘Nutrition Facts’ panel found on food packages. ‘Ingredients’ would include cannabinoids and terpenes, another type of biologically active molecule produced by the plants. 

Terpenes heavily influence a strain’s flavor and aroma, and some experts believe they also interact with cannabinoids to tweak its effects, in what’s called the ‘entourage effect’. The musky-smelling myrcene, for example, is thought to have more psychoactive effects for THC while the citrusy limonene has more elevated mood and stress release.

Classifying cannabis using terpenes also makes sense from a genetics standpoint: in their respective studies, Myles and Jikomes determined that strains can be sorted into a handful of groups—such as limonene, myrcene, caryophyllene, and pinene—based on their dominant terpene profiles, which in turn can be linked specific gene expression patterns.

Simplicity, not sophistication            

A revamped labeling system that’s based on a strain’s chemical profile is actually what the classification should be in sophisticated and mature cannabis markets.

But today’s reality is such that most consumers aren’t looking for more information on labels, much less scientifically accurate ones. People just try to buy whatever the most bang they can get for their buck. The industry is driven by price point, and the cheapest stuff is usually what moves in the highest volumes.

Optimizing that metric has been true for the entire lifetime of the industry and doesn’t show any evidence of changing.

Plus, there’s another crucial reason why the indica/sativa labeling sticks: it’s easy to use. The whole system is just whether you want an upper or a downer. It enables retailers and brands to have a universal, foolproof way to market an arbitrary set of products to any consumer, and it’s simple enough that anyone can understand it.

Ultimately, you can put as many terpenes on the sticker as you want. But my prediction is that indica/sativa system is here to stay.