[Fnoord]

I can't comment on the latter though it may be dangerous to operate machinery or drive just like that's true with SSRIs. Then again, the same might be true with an upper, like Ritalin, or anti psychotics. But the reverse could also be true. Someone with f.e. ADHD who uses Ritalin might be able to be a better driver _due_ to the Ritalin.

As for the former,

1) its widely documented and I can personally attest that marihuana caused anxiety attacks, including one clear case of a psychosis, in numerous occasions.

2) It is also known that people who suffer from schizophrenia should stay clear from marihuana. The same's true if they have a relative who suffers from schizophrenia. Why? Elevated risks to trigger a schizophrenic episode

3) I worked in a Dutch coffeeshop and know that, to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned. There's also a lot of hybrids though, as well as some conflicting info. Decent website is Leafly [1]. I was wary to give tourists sativa, as well as spacecakes which we also sold. I recommended them different things instead (including: not buying). My boss didn't give a shit though, as long as people were 18+.

For a good movie about the subject of drug-induced psychosis, see "Das weisse Rauschen" (The White Sound) [2]. Although in this movie the drug which causes the trigger is "magic mushrooms" this movie still takes a good shot at what a drug-induced psychosis could look like.

[1] https://www.leafly.com/

[2] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276617/

[root_axis]

Sorry if my post was a little unclear, I am aware that some marijuana users sometimes experience anxiety as well as the other risks and symptoms you describe, I was specifically referring to the suggested disparate effects of indica vs sativa strains.

> to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned.

It's not the first time I've heard this idea, but I have never seen an authoritative source, only the suggestion from marijuana connoisseurs that it is the case. Studies have shown that almost all commercially available marijuana is mislabeled and that many popular marijuana strains are not necessarily chemically distinct despite evident morphological differences - that is to say, most people probably don't know what they're consuming so it may not be wise to rely on the wisdom of the crowd to vet these ideas.

[smcnally]

The Open Cannabis Project curates data from testing labs, the NIH, and elsewhere.

https://opencannabisproject.org/external-data-resources/

I have not seen the mislabeling studies you note. Most of the labels -- strain names -- are not intrinsically meaningful anyway.

w/r/t being chemically distinct, the research I've read show clear differences in cannabinoid and terpene composition between major strains, hybrids created from those, and within all of these per particular harvest, origin, conditions.

The pharmacological effects of those compositions on you won't be exact -- they provide guidance.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi...

(ibuprofen, gin, and brussel sprouts don't effect you and me exactly the same way, either, but we have the general idea of what's involved.)

there's more anecdotal evidence than hard scientific research available because cannabis has been consumed for 3,000 years, but it's been an illegal narcotic in the US for the last 60.

[Fnoord]

Well, they'll always contain a % of THC and CBD. Together with their taste and freshness, people become a regular of a certain strain from a certain shop because then these factors are the most static.

If you check strains on e.g. Leafly you can see that most are hybrids, and you can also see their ancestry (how they came about). Although in the shop I worked, hybrids weren't sorted as such; all strains were sorted on effect. Clerks were smokers themselves, so they knew what they were selling, because they knew whether they'd get stoned or high. New strains were enthusiastically tested.