I gather THC:CBD:CBN ratios can result in slightly differing highs, but none of that is linked in any consistent or reliable way to strains, right? It’s my understanding those factors are far more linked to how the cannabis was grown and cared for than the plant’s exact genetics.
And terpenes are not known to be psychoactive, yet a lot of people say they can influence the high to be either more sedating or stimulating. Is that true? My gut feeling is that’s also bullshit and they only effect the smell and taste. I could see an argument that they indirectly influence the high in the same way your set and setting influences it, but certainly not in any consistent, reliable way, and especially not between different people.
My experience with weed, regardless of the terpene profile, strain, or indica/sativa has been that it’s all basically the same high and there is not a soul on this Earth who could smoke some flower in a blind test and tell you what the strain is or even just if it’s an indica or sativa.
Indica vs Sativa is most definitely bullshit as everything has been cross bred so much there’s really only hybrids outside of actual wild cannabis. So indica being sleepy and sativa being energetic is just stoner mythology at this point.
However as others have pointed out, differences in cannabinoid ratios, terpene profiles, ROA (and temperature if vaping) can definitely result in different highs. Likewise the placebo effect is very real and if you go in expecting a strain to make you sleepy for example then chances are it will.
The biggest difference though that a majority of people will actually be able to tell is THC content honestly. It’s quite a new field though and there is a lot of interesting research being done to increase our understanding (e.g. the effects of different terpenes).