Posted on 11/10/2017 6:36:48 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
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.
Calm
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.
Cruise
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.
Create
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.
Connect
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.
Charge
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.
Real estate is high in many of the pot growing areas as are power requirements for indoor pot farming. Property was leased based on profits at the time and unsustainable. Environmental problems are getting the attention of governmental agencies and will force changes in current growers operations.
Larger operators will crush the small pot farmers.
“The big problem with that is that none of us live in a vacuum. If addiction only affected the addict and no one else, I’d be all for letting people do whatever. But the problem is that our society will not stand by idly while people become more and more dysfunctional through their addictions. We’ll keep on feeding and sometimes housing them long past the time their brains no longer function. We’ll keep sending them to ineffective rehabs and spending all kinds of money on them. We’ll repeatedly revive them after overdoses and will not let them die. Since this is the case, we cannot talk about addicts’ personal liberties as if that is the only consideration—we are talking about the taxpayer’s liberty to go where they want without being confronted by drug addicts, about their liberty to keep as much of their own money as they can and choose to spend it the way they want, etc. Although I lean more libertarian than anything else, I also recognize the fact that our society is not based on each person for himself, acting in a vacuum, and that such a society may not be possible in the real world.”
The problem with that logic is that you must place the same burden on every other “vice”. So...
Smoking cigarettes? Unhealthy, leads to cancer, which will place a burden on the healthcare system that the government runs. So that must also be illegal.
Drinking a cold one? Nope! Liver damage. It will place a burden on the healthcare system that the government runs. So that also needs to be illegal.
Oh wait, you like fast food? Obesity epidemic! Make it illegal so that it won’t place a burden on society.
You don’t go to the gym? That’s unhealthy! Maybe we should have the government force us to go or we will be fined. You know, so that we don’t create a burden on the taxpayers who fund the health care plan.
You say we repeatedly revive addicts who overdose. You are not referring to pot. No one has ever, ever died from an “overdose of cannabis” (unlike alcohol, which will kill you if you overindulge).
The solution isn’t to ban everything that can hurt you, the solution is to get the government out of other peoples vices.
“Why don’t they rush find new ways to grow garlic or onions or strawberries? There’s already an established market for those and its not counting on already feeble Americans getting even higher and stupider than they already are.”
I would imagine it’s because garlic and strawberries sell for a few dollars a pound while cannabis sells for thousands of dollars a pound.
Free market and all that.
Interesting...I just thought it was the illegal pot farmers working for the cartels that were causing problems...I have heard they are ruining many areas in the forests and parks in NorCal.
Cannibis sells for $hundreds per lb, because it is nearly completely illegal except for some exceptions. When it becomes legal, price will be as low as anything, and 90% of those companies entering the cannibis biz will be bankrupt.
meanwhile, America will still be importing lots of fruits and vegetables.
I've posted more evidence than you have. Whether that concerns you is of course up to you.
You only tried one search term, which gave a meager set of 12 search results. Plus, since the database is the one that medical researchers use, sometimes the condition you are looking for is not necessarily described in terms that a lay person would recognize as relevant.
However, when I chose a different term, one more likely to be used by researchers—”marijuana brain damage”—I had 118 results. Among them are the following:
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614161, “Multiple Cerebral Infarcts in a Young Patient Associated With Marijuana Use.”
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557129, “Recreational stimulants, herbal, and spice cannabis: The core psychobiological processes that underlie their damaging effects.”
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27224247, “Grey Matter Changes Associated with Heavy Cannabis Use: A Longitudinal sMRI Study.”
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26849855, “Psychosis following traumatic brain injury and cannabis use in late adolescence.”
These articles are all pretty damning as far as effects of marijuana go. Furthermore, that was just one search term. There are over 26,000 results from searching “marijuana” with no modifiers—and so far, it doesn’t look good for those who insist that marijuana use is harmless.
I commend you for actually going to the source and looking for yourself. Telling you to check PubMed is not the same as telling you to search Google; PubMed is *the* catalog used by medical researchers all over the world to stay current with medical issues.
If you find an article that you would like me to explain in plain language, feel free to ask me.
“If you find an article that you would like me to explain in plain language, feel free to ask me.”
LMAO!!!
“These articles are all pretty damning as far as effects of marijuana go. “
Pure fallacy once again.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26849855. This one is basically a “no kidding” kind of “study”. It’s a no brainer that people with dramatic brain injury prpbably shouldn’t use cannabis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27224247 Concludes with, “Long-term prospective studies starting in early adolescence are needed to reach final conclusions.” Which is what I’ve been saying all along, Fedzilla needs to life the prohibition against cannabis so it can be properly studied by 3rd parties researchers here I’m America.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557129 Conclues with: “Recreational stimulants such as cocaine or MDMA (3.4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and sedative drugs such as cannabis damage human homeostasis and well-being through similar core psychobiological mechanisms.” I think we can all agree that cocaine & MDMA aren’t for recreational use. Different strains of cannabis are definitely sedating (thank you Lord) but to say cannabis damages human homeostasis in this day of Ambien, Trazodone & others is laughable. I’ll take cannabis over big Pharma meds for sleep every night—which I do since 2015. I sleep like a baby as a result.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28614161 A single care/patient study that looks at a 14 yr old who should have NEVER been allowed to use cannabis at all abused cannabis and MIGHT be at risk of stroke for their efforts. “Long-term daily use of marijuana in young people may cause serious damage to the cerebrovascular system.” Well, duh. Cannabis is like everything else in life: too much isn’t good for you & people under 18 shouldn’t use it at all.
“... it doesn’t look good for those who insist that marijuana use is harmless.”
Too much of anything isn’t good for us. Hardly earth shaking for there to be negative consequences for abusing any substance.
At least you posted some links this time. They don’t validate your FUD but they are actual articles with some facts in them. Lot’s of “might”, “it’s possible” and “long term studies are needed”. Fun reading :)
“Cannibis sells for $hundreds per lb, because it is nearly completely illegal except for some exceptions. When it becomes legal, price will be as low as anything, and 90% of those companies entering the cannibis biz will be bankrupt.
meanwhile, America will still be importing lots of fruits and vegetables.”
Uh, no.
Cannabis sells for hundreds of dollars per ounce; thousands of dollars per pound.
It *is* already legal in a number of states, and the price has remained more or less constant (a slight increase if anything when you factor in the taxes now).
The demand for cannabis is much higher than the current supply.
The price is already dropping, according to a couple of my marijuana growing neighbors. Some of their crop, which they were able to tumble off and sell before, is no longer marketable due to excessive supply. The higher priced stuff (buds?) are selling for much less.
Stipulated that marijuana, like alcohol (cf. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988578), is bad for developing brains.
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557129, “Recreational stimulants, herbal, and spice cannabis: The core psychobiological processes that underlie their damaging effects.”
No mention of permanent brain damage here.
those who insist that marijuana use is harmless.
Has anyone here insisted that - or is this a straw man?
Which I have already pointed out multiple times on multiple threads. Given that brain development continues until about age 25, and that 1 of 16 high school seniors reported daily use last year (Monitoring the Future Survey: High School and Youth Trends), this is a real problem.
—https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28557129, “Recreational stimulants, herbal, and spice cannabis: The core psychobiological processes that underlie their damaging effects.”
No mention of permanent brain damage here.
Establishing permanent brain damage was not within the scope of this paper. It showed that using mind-altering drugs has considerable effect on brain function through alterations in levels of neurochemicals.
Being that I studied mechanisms of toxicology for my PhD, I can say that substances which cause short term effects on function (whether it's brain function or some other organ system) do cause permanent damage when those effects are prolonged. In some cases--e.g. dioxin poisoning--the activation of a completely natural and common pathway becomes lethal when that pathway is prevented from shutting down after activation. I also have to consider other consequences of constantly activating these neural pathways: for example, epigenetic alteration of the DNA in cells causes essentially permanent alterations in their functions, and effects in other cell populations caused by alterations of brain hormone productions. Etc.
Has anyone here insisted that - or is this a straw man?
That has been the theme of NORML ever since I've heard of the organization, so at least for the last 30 or 40 years. That is also the most common rationalization for the legalization of marijuana that I have seen from legalization proponents here on FR. They keep claiming that it is safer than anything else someone could be using. The fact is that if a substance alters brain function to the point where behavior and perception are altered, it is toxic. And toxic substances can cause permanent damage.
As I predicted: you are not interested in any of the evidence, and very dismissive of it once you see it. You very cleverly put a stipulation that you would only believe research that is not done by professionals, so you have a built-in excuse not to believe any bona-fide research.
BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.
You do not have to consume a lethal dose in order to have symptoms of toxicity. And yes, I would consider ginseng to be a toxin. I used to drink ginseng tea myself, before I looked it up and read about its biochemical properties. I haven't touched it since.
As can non-toxic substances. Water for example. Your logic seems a bit weak with this statement Mom. Substances that can have toxic effects at one concentration can have beneficial effects at another and can have mixed effects at others. As with many things in life, there is the matter of balance to take into consideration. Do you consider all cannabinoids to be without beneficial effects when introduced into the body?
I guess you missed the sentence where I stated that I studied toxicology for my PhD. Thus, the toxicological saying that the dose makes the poison runs in my blood (in a purely figurative sense, of course).
As for alleged beneficial effects of any cannabinoid, I have yet to see any medical documentation of that. I've only been searching the medical literature for it since the 1990s. One of my research staff has an active cannabidiol research project right now, so I know from personal experience that researchers are still looking for those medical benefits.
BTW, have you figured out the full carbon cycle yet? Do you want me to pop back into that thread and explain about CO2 to you again?
“As I predicted: you are not interested in any of the evidence, and very dismissive of it once you see it.”
Your fallacy machine is in overdrive again. Your “evidence”was read & fully considered. It also doesn’t say what you claim it says. In fact you’re evidence supports my perspective & not yours.
Science is about what the conclusion in one of those studies rightly stated: “More long term studies are needed”. Not my words, the words in the conclusion of one of the reports YOU posted a link for all to read.
“You very cleverly put a stipulation that you would only believe research that is not done by professionals, so you have a built-in excuse not to believe any bona-fide research.”
Blatant falsehood. I’ve said clearly I support 3rd party research. Not prohibitionist supported research & not cannabis supported research. As I posted earlier, you are not credible or believable, exDemMom. Not at all.
“BTW, your many spelling and grammatical errors do not help to make your case that marijuana is essentially harmless, either.”
You end with another logical fallacy. How appropriate.
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.