This Luxury Cannabis Company Is Completely Revolutionizing the Way We Think About Weed

As marijuana legalization continues across the country, weed is becoming increasingly mainstream. However, as much as the stoner stereotype has evolved into a broader label that also encompasses CEOs, educated millennials, and the Spicolis of the world, it still has a negative connotation. Industry leaders have quickly learned that destigmatizing marijuana use begins with educating the public, but Adrian Sedlin of Canndescent has figured out that, as with anything, it's really all about branding.

Sedlin's luxury cannabis company offers premium flower alongside sophisticated packaging that no other company in the current market rivals. One look and I can almost guarantee that you'll be more inclined to spark one than ever before. What Sedlin and his team did first was identify the pain points of the consumer experience and make everything from the strain names to the aesthetic more approachable.

"I would describe most of the historical imagery associated with cannabis as being very countercultural," Sedlin told POPSUGAR. "It's a lot of bad imagery, bad design. Yeah, that appeals to a certain segment, but there are tons of users who are uncomfortable with the purchase experience. It's confusing and an intimidating space, so another problem to think about is do you really want to go in and buy a strain called Alaskan Thunder F**k?"

Instead of traditional strain names like OG Kush and Green Crack, Canndescent simplified the classification system to five categories: Calm, Cruise, Create, Connect, and Charge. Each one is designed with proprietary genetics to perform exactly how it's labeled and is organically grown, cured, trimmed, and packaged in-house into childproof glass jars that include humidity packs to preserve quality. Sedlin said that half of its strains are genetically developed from scratch, making them completely unique to Canndescent, while others are comparable to more popular varieties.

While the rebrand is indeed friendlier, my biggest concern was whether the five categories were too broad for accuracy. For example, what's calm for me, may not be so calm for somebody else, especially the novice consumer who Canndescent is targeting. Sedlin and his team did take this into careful consideration when developing the product. Each bottle is labeled with the effects to expect, along with suggested activities, to give you an idea of the type of experience it may be more suited to. But in no way is Canndescent claiming that its strains are one size fits all.

"It's imperfect because you have a unique biochemistry, but it's a hell of an improvement," Sedlin told us. "Anything I can do to simplify it and make that user experience clearer and clearer for more users is something we'll adopt. When you're dealing with someone who has no category experience, all that type of thinking is fair. And at the end of the day, each person at some level has to figure out how cannabis hits them."

To evaluate whether or not the actual effects of each strain were in the ballpark, I tested them all. I smoked each of the five categories on five separate days and paired them with the experience it was intended for. Spoiler: I'm f***ing sold.

Intended use: "For a restful sleep or relief from aches and pains, soothe yourself with Canndescent Calm." When to consume: Before bed. Verdict: One hit of Calm and the results were instant. I experienced immediate sleepiness and full-body relaxation. It felt heavy yet comforting and not at all anxiety-inducing.

Intended use: "Keep up the pace, relax your mind, and sail through the day with Canndescent Cruise." When to consume: Before running errands or starting your day. Verdict: Cruise is a fantastic daytime weed. I did feel a little tired, but not enough to knock me out. I smoked this one before tackling a day full of errands, and I was able to breeze through on cruise control without burning out.

Intended use: "When it's time to paint, jam, code, blog, or game, find your muse in Canndescent Create." When to consume: Before tackling a project. Verdict: If you need to crack down on some work, feel inspired, or simply focus, this one's for you. I smoked a couple hits of Create before catching up on some work at home, and I was pleasantly surprised how functional I was. Not only did I do laundry with laser focus, but I also didn't find myself struggling to think while writing a post. Weed typically makes my mind hazy and slow-thinking, but Create offered clarity and focus.

Intended use: "When it's time to laugh, go out with friends, or get intimate, invite Canndescent Connect." When to consume: For social situations. Verdict: I figured that a dinner party would be the perfect scenario to test out a couple joints of Connect. I had five experienced smokers, including myself, to note any differences in sociability and energy, and some of us reported being more present and alert than we typically are when smoking other brands. I personally found Connect to be the least distinct of all five strains, but it was a nice choice for this type of setting nonetheless.

Intended use: "To get off the couch, take a run, or go out for the night, power up with Canndescent Charge." When to consume: Before going out. Verdict: Charge was hands down my favorite strain of all. Ten minutes in, I was noticeably more alert and energized, which is rarely the case for me, even with sativas. I definitely didn't feel glued to the couch, and I'm glad I smoked Charge before heading out to a weeknight concert because I was surprised to find myself so awake the entire night.

Overall, I was very satisfied with Canndescent's products. At $60 for an eighth, this is one top-shelf brand I can justify splurging on. Its descriptions were true to the label, based on my experience, and it reminded me how drastically different quality weed is to the more affordable varieties I've been using. The stunning, limited-edition gift box I received from Canndescent (pictured above) is available for purchase at California dispensaries for $250 and comes with an eighth of all five strains, matches, rolling papers, and hemp wicks for each. They're also sold individually for $50 to $60 an eighth (depending on the dispensary). If you purchase the prepackaged version, you'll receive a glass jar along with a box of matches, a packet of premium rolling papers, and a roll of hemp wicks, as shown below.

At the end of unpackaging my gift box on Instagram Stories, I polled my followers and asked whether or not they'd be more likely to smoke weed if it was presented in this way. Ninety-three percent responded yes. The sample size was too small to actually yield significant results, but it does say something about branding. Sedlin describes Canndescent as "sexy, sophisticated, and simple." Based on the overwhelmingly positive reactions from friends and coworkers — including those who aren't regular cannabis users — and my own firsthand experience with Canndescent's product, I can absolutely see this company revolutionizing the industry and changing the way we approach weed.

Um... I was basically selecting papers at random
Weird. Why?
Because I'm a scientist. I do not take a preconceived conclusion and then look for evidence to support it; if what I suspect is true, then the evidence is wherever I look and I do not have to cherry-pick to invent evidence that does not actually exist.
I did, and found no support for your claim about permanent brain damage.

What that tells me is not that you did not find support, but that you do not understand enough about the biology involved to be able to discern when the researchers are talking about permanent brain damage. I think I also had a misunderstanding, in that you had stated something similar in a previous post, after I had linked several articles that do show that permanent brain damage occurs. I had thought you were only referring to the last of the four articles, which strongly suggested that brain damage occurs in the specific condition described in the study but did not establish it. In the first three articles I linked (selected randomly), they very much described permanent brain damage. As a reminder, here are the three again (but not linked):

—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614161, “Multiple Cerebral Infarcts in a Young Patient Associated With Marijuana Use.” A cerebral infarct is basically a mini-stroke, which leaves permanent brain damage.

—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27224247, “Grey Matter Changes Associated with Heavy Cannabis Use: A Longitudinal sMRI Study.” Grey matter changes are a form of brain damage and are most likely permanent, given that the brain does not regenerate.

—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26849855, “Psychosis following traumatic brain injury and cannabis use in late adolescence.” Psychosis is the result of damage or destruction of small brain structures which have a strong effect on mood and emotion. Thus, it is a form of permanent brain damage.

—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557129, “Recreational stimulants, herbal, and spice cannabis: The core psychobiological processes that underlie their damaging effects. Again, I agree that this one article did not establish permanent brain damage. However, given the brain's lack of regeneration capacity, it is highly suggestive of processes that do, in fact, result in permanent brain damage. Since other studies have shown similar effects to have a fairly long duration (they were still present three months after last marijuana use in one study), it is highly likely that they will turn out to be permanent.

I am sorry I did not take the time to explain exactly how those first three articles linked demonstrate permanent brain damage--I had assumed that you knew enough biology to understand without an explanation.

There is no question about the fact that marijuana causes brain damage in developing brains, and I have stated as much many times, in many threads. Its effect in adult brains--in people over age 25 years--is less clear. It causes deficits in brain function, but whether those deficits are evidence of permanent brain damage is still a question.

And now, let me repeat my statement about NORML from a previous post:

Nope, it is still the message pushed by NORML, even if marijuana proponents who keep pushing their agenda at FR try to deny it. I found this statement just minutes ago at the NORML website: "By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose."

That quote from NORML is only one piece of evidence that NORML still promotes marijuana as completely harmless. The other piece of evidence is that it is very difficult to find NORML mention any deleterious effect of marijuana. Nope, a perusal of NORML's website contains a mixture of pro-legalization propaganda, including several assertions that marijuana has a plethora of magic medical effects. NORML does not have to say in exact words that "marijuana is completely safe" for an astute reader to be able to discern that that is their official stance, based on what they do and do not say on their website.

Um... I was basically selecting papers at random

Weird. Why?

Because I'm a scientist. I do not take a preconceived conclusion and then look for evidence to support it; if what I suspect is true, then the evidence is wherever I look

If you're selecting at random, you'll find mostly irrelevance.

I did, and found no support for your claim about permanent brain damage.

ROTFL! You keep huffing and puffing, but no houses fall.

In the first three articles I linked (selected randomly), they very much described permanent brain damage.

In young people - which is why I replied, "Stipulated that marijuana, like alcohol (cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988578), is bad for developing brains."

I agree that this one article did not establish permanent brain damage.

Good.

Since other studies have shown similar effects to have a fairly long duration (they were still present three months after last marijuana use in one study), it is highly likely that they will turn out to be permanent.

So in your personal dictionary, three months is close to "for life." Fascinating.

And now, let me repeat my statement about NORML from a previous post:

That quote from NORML is only one piece of evidence that NORML still promotes marijuana as completely harmless.

As I've already pointed out, "Nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose" does not mean "harmless."

The other piece of evidence is that it is very difficult to find NORML mention any deleterious effect of marijuana.

Difficult for you, I don't doubt - but I found it easy to find the statement I've already posted to you twice:

"Use of cannabis, to the extent that it impairs health, personal development or achievement, is abuse, to be resisted by responsible cannabis users." - http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/item/principles-of-responsible-use

Move those goalposts; you said you hadn't seen "any medical documentation of beneficial effects of any cannabinoid". Now you're backpedalling to not-better-than-other-medicines - and apparently implying that this is true for EVERY patient (because if it's not true for every patient, then the no-better-on-average medicine should be available for the sake of those patients for whom it works better).

It is a statement that the best that could be shown in one or two studies was that patients reported that they experienced pain relief equivalent to other drugs.

Where did I say or imply otherwise?

For FDA purposes, a drug is unlikely to be approved unless it can be shown to be an improvement over current drugs on the market.

A cruel and nanny-statist rule - another good argument against Fedzilla.

reliable prevalence data does not exist. [...] the number of marijuana users who have hyperemesis syndrome might be significant--we just don't know yet.

And yet you felt free to claim, "one effect of chronic marijuana use or a single high dose is to cause hyperemesis". LOL!

You're entitled to your opinion - but that's all it is, and evidently contrary to the opinions of the editors of the many journals in which meta-analyses are published.

Meta-analyses are one of the weakest forms of medical "research" in existence. I'm not going to go into all of the details

Or any of the details. Yet more of your evidence-free assertions. <yawn>

"Maybe the carbon cycle chart I posted was not detailed enough? Some carbon dioxide that gets dissolved in the ocean converts to carbonates that sink to the bottom of the ocean. At the edge of the continental plates, that mass of carbonates is subducted under the opposing plate, where it is dissolved into the hot magma and released in volcanoes as CO2. All of the CO2 cycles through the air and water, although some of the cycles may take thousands or millions of years."

That was a nice little graphic you posted Mom, but unfortunately it does not prove your point. ALL of the CO2 coming out of the undersea volcanoes I mentioned does not come from subducted limestone. SOME of it comes from that source, but not ALL of it and hence ALL of it has not been cycled through the air and water and hence the oceanic plant life that is busily creating biomass out of this CO2 is not creating biomass out of CO2 that has ever been in the atmosphere.

Don't believe me that all of the CO2 coming out of volcanoes does not come from limestone, Mom? Of course you don't. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything that might lead to you having to admit to having made an error -- but maybe you, in all of your educated wisdom, could enlighten me... If all CO2 coming out of volcanoes comes only from limestone (your apparent contention,) how would you explain the CO2 spewing volcanoes on Venus where the atmosphere is ~96% CO2 and where there has never been any life to create any limestone?

Or is Venus too far away for you Mom? Then maybe you could enlighten me as to the concentration of CO2 on this planet before life appeared and started laying down limestone?

Yep, it looks like your "All of the CO2 cycles through the air and water" statement is just another Mom attempt at knowing it all while actually not even knowing what she doesn't know.

Shall we continue, Mom?

When I said, would you like to discuss anaerobic life processes, you replied:

"Again, no exception. Anaerobes use biomolecules to form their bodies, and, just as with aerobes, those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of photosynthesis."

Well golly gee Mom. here is a link to an article by Professor G. Jeffrey Taylor, Ph.D at the Hawai‘i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology <link> that states:

"Recent research on deep rocks on Earth has shown that bacteria can live kilometers beneath the surface. Some bacteria live on nothing but rock and water, extracting energy from chemical reactions rather than from sunlight."

I guess those particular biomolecules Dr. Taylor is describing would be an exception to your statement that all "those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of photosynthesis"

Yep. Once again Mom, we have another exception to your "No exceptions" statement.

Are you ready to admit to making just one little, itsy-bitsy mistake yet Mom?

Of course you're not, so let's keep going a little longer. It's all just for fun Mom, so lets enjoy this!

Your statements,

"Wonderful. Just keep reminding her that every bit of food on the table was atmospheric carbon dioxide just a few short months ago."

and

"Hmm. Still as true now as it was when I originally typed it. So what if mushrooms or other fungi are in their meal? Fungi, just like everything else, incorporate biological molecules--containing carbon--into their bodies. And regardless of whether their carbon source is fermented animal dung--the usual substrate of commercial mushrooms--or decayed wood, it still originated as atmospheric carbon dioxide. As I said before, no exceptions."

do not disprove my point that the mushrooms busily consuming a dead (several years dead) walnut tree in my backyard were not making use of CO2 that had been in the atmosphere "several short months ago." That tree has been dead for years and those Turkey Tails (an edible mushroom) are not using CO2 that was in the atmosphere "a few short months ago." That was a poor attempt at misdirection Mom. You tried to pass over the "few short months ago" part and try to tell me that I didn't know that those mushrooms were using food that the tree created by pulling CO2 out of the air. Of course I knew that the tree made use of CO2 from the air. Your error was the "few short months ago" part and alleging that I don't understand the CO2 cycle doesn't make that error go away.

Mom, you're not up to your usually standards tonight. Are you feeling poorly? We could continue this another evening if you wish.

Methinks exDemMom’s hands are tired from typing walls of text a lot here recently. All the deflection + multiple fallacies mixed with a few blatant falsehoods will wear someone with a PhD out faster than you can say, “You lied again”.

Perhaps Mom will be taking a break from making walls of text from now thru the holidays & come back after the 1st of the year with new fallacies to share.

Plus she has her grammar police-person duties that take up a goodly portion of her thinking & time. Poor gal has to be worn out from it all. :)

I wonder what prohibitionists will do when cannabis is legal across the nation in a few years? Will they still be angry that some of their fellow citizens have happy lives because of cannabis?

I mean, depression & anxiety weren’t much fun but I did keep a lot of pharmaceuitical company execs in new cars when I was paying over $700 a month just for medicines for 20+years & now I spend a WHOLE lot less $$$ on my medicine (cannabis) and it actually helps me live a happy & productive life. Perhaps I should send the big wheels at Big Pharma an apology letter.

Funny how that gets on the prohibitionists’ last nerve. :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.