Here you will find our full range of Medical Cannabis seeds.
Many of our seeds are available in Regular, Feminized and Auto Flowering varieties.
Please check the available seed type and pack size options which are shown in the seed description
We have been watching the medical cannabis seeds with great interest and have been putting together our own articles on Medical cannabis uses as well as the roles of different cannabinoids inlcuding THC, CBD and many more.
Clearly, we don’t just grow the plants, measure what’s in them and not look at the morphology, Our Hortapharm botanists work in our glasshouse very regularly and we have picked varieties which have twenty or more characteristics that they would look for from their ten or twenty year's experience of growing these materials. In fact, we have the longest audit trail of legal cannabis materials that currently exists, and probably the only one.
We now have varieties that no one else will have. Recreationally, everybody has been trying to produce high THC varieties and we believe very strongly that a lot of the advantages conferred in taking the whole plant come from the other components of cannabis specifically CBD. ln the cannabis plant you have the rare situation where some of the components add together to give better effect. Some of the components work to counteract some of the side effects of the other ones and the whole plant is very highly tolerated by humans. The relationship between the dose required for medicine and the dose you'd require to kill somebody is about 20-40, 000 times. Now a standard pharmaceutical might be in the order of 50 or 100 so it is very very safe indeed. What we're interested in is as many of the cannabinoids as possible.
Were also interested in some of the non cannabinoid contents. There are some ingredients in cannabis that have very potent pharmacological activity but they re not cannabinoids. So we have varieties that are very, very rich in Delta 9 THC, very rich and extremely pure. We can produce something like 94-95 percent of the cannabinoid in the plant as THC. And we can extract that extremely purely. We also have plants that are very rich in CBD. What we do is extract from each of those plants and then by blending the extracts quantitatively we can produce a very specific ratio of THC to CBD.
My belief is that the THC/CBD ratio very much determines the type of patient that will get the benefit. In the US most cannabis is high THC cannabis, hardly any CBD whatsoever. In the UK, most patients seem to find their way to soap bar, to the Moroccan Riff Valley materials, which will contain sometimes up to 50 percent CBD. So the UK patients are receiving an almost entirely different drug, in pharmaceutical terms, to the American ones.
What we want to be able to do is reproduce some of the ratios that you see and perhaps the ratios that you might have seen towards the end of last century. I think towards the end of the last century there would have inevitably been more CBD in the plants than now, and it is interesting that some of the more convincing medical reports by doctors observing their patients with regard to the anti-convulsant effect with epilepsy came in the medical literature at the end of the last century. I took the view that CBD had an important role, and what we really needed to do was produce some medicines that had a range of these ratios.
So we have THC crops, all growing from clones so that the whole crop is genetically identical. We have air conditioned glasshouses which are computer-controlled for total light, for photoperiod, for everything. We can produce entirely consistent plants now and we have an excellent bud to leaf ratio - I know that there was a comment out in the media early on that we were producing plants with lots of leaf and no bud, and that was from the picture that went in the paper last year.
But that was a crop of CBD that we actually harvested three weeks early because we knew that we didn't need it. We put that in the paper thinking it was a nice, innocent picture and, of course people said "Oh my God, look at their bud to leaf ratio".
In addition, however, to the THC/CBD, you probably know that in a more equatorial or tropical climate a lot of the THC would be represented by THCV, which is the propylanalogue of THC. That would be in Thai or Malaysian cannabis and I believe people do report a rtther rapid crystal-clear, zingy-type high with that material without a grogginess. That is a nice explanation, from a recreational point of view, but from a scientific point of view that would indicate to me that that material might have a better affinity for receptors lt may be a more precise drug than the TI-IC and, interestingly enough, at this years International Cannabinoid Research Society conference there were a couple of papers looking at some of the analogues of THC.
So as I was saying, tropical or equatorial cannabis would, perhaps, have THCV in it asopposed to THC. Or there \vill be a higher proportion of THCV and CBD may well be substituted by CBC. CBC and CBD are very
difficult to distinguish in the laboratory on an analytical basis, ln fact, l think it was only two years ago a Japanese researcher produced the analytical methods to do that. So quite a lot of the literature that has reported the potential effects of CBD over the last 20 years may well have been talking about CBC.
BT : So you have to decide which one affects the cannabinomimetic effects of the THC?
GG: Exactly. S0 what we have is varieties of purely THCV plants. I’ve got CBC plants and I’ve got CBG plants, and it goes on. If any of these cannabinoids do anything, I'll find out first, and l`ll find out first by a long way. For, once you get away from THC varieties, myvarieties of cannabis are the sort that you are not going to find anywhere else in the world.
And that is where the excitement is in beginning to take medicinal cannabis on to a longer term programme. This is actually the first example of probably 20 - 30 year’s research to come. Which should have been done in the last 20 - 30 years of course. That is sad in a way, but fortunate for me as I have the opportunity and the honour now to be able to do this.
So we have these very carefully grown varieties which we then extract in a number of different ways, some of thern using standard pharmaceutical extraction techniques but others using extraction techniques without any solvent. I know your readers would be interested to know whether it was organic or not. In one technique we just use carbon dioxide as a solvent, and I don’t think most people are going to worry about that.
We’ve been developing extraction techniques, looking at ways of getting out the range of active ingredients, getting them consistently, and getting our efficiencies right. And that has been an enonnous programme and that will continue for the next couple of years.
BT : So when it's described as a whole plant extract, that doesn't exactly mean that you just chop up the entire plant?
GG: That’s a very interesting question that I've not been asked before. Actually, the answer is yes and no to both. When I talk about a whole extract what I mean is “of the chosen part of the plant”, and here we are talking about the aerial part of the plant, we’re not talking about the roots, although the roots were used in the l7th and l8th centuries. When we take that plant, we like to make a whole extract of what is in that plant - so what was in the plant, we like it to be in the pot afterwards, but now transformed into standard pharmaceutical
form. On the other hand, you could look it another way. An extract from the whole cannabis plant would be you take the plant and you strip off the leaves, the bud, the resin and everything and put it into a mulcher.
Well, we`re happy to do that because we have a pharmaceutical extraction plant, whereas people who don't have pharmaceutical extraction plants would tend to look at the bits of the cannabis plant that generally have the highest concentration of readily available drug, and you know where that is - that's in the trichomes. So we don't actually have to particularly strip one part of the cannabis plant away, we are quite happy to make extracts from all of the aerial parts of the plant - that's the leaf and the bud.
But I'll stress now, our bud to leaf ratio is ten to one, so we don't have a lot of leaf now. In fact, we go a lot further than the illicit growers who tend to leave quite a lot of leaf on their plants. Our plants are grown with such precision now, that we end up with a cannabis plant which is just bud. We have harvested from each cannabis plant serial flowering buds on sequential days and analysed them day after day after day to see exactly which is the correct day, for example. This is a message that you can clearly understand, that I'd like you to get across: that some of the best quality material now in the World is in my laboratories, in terms of consistency and content.
So we can make extracts from the whole cannabis plant and we can make extracts from different bits of the plant and there may well be some differential extraction efficiencies from resin or from bud as opposed to leaf. And, of course, the leaves from the higher part of the plant have more drug in than the leaves from the lower part of the plant. You probably know that, but we've now quantified that, because we have to have quality control techniques.We arrive, therefore, at a pharmaceutical grade material, which is a clear liquid in a bottle, and from there we can than proceed to formulation work and continue to incorporate those materials in the appropriate drug delivery modalities.
BT : As for as the drug delivery goes, you are using inhaler technology?
GG: We're using a range of technologies. A lot of people have made a lot of the inhaler, I think that is a very, very important route and one that we are putting a lot of research into. But there are other routes which lend themselves very well and we are looking at a number of routes of delivery. Essentially our prime routes are sub-lingual and inhaler.
BT? Here's an interesting question I wanted to ask you. Is GW a public company. Are shares available in it?
GG: It's a private company as opposed to being a listed one. Initially the founders put the first small stake in it, but the company has raised money from private equity investors and will continue to do so. We always encourage interested parties to talk to the company to see whether it is something they may want to support.
What happened in the early days was that everybody thought we were a division of government. Even some divisions of government thought we were a division of government, so nobody assumed we needed any funds.
We feel that we are going to make a pharmaceutical, and my definition of a pharmaceutical is a worthwhile medicine that will make money. I've been in this area long enough to believe that in cannabis we have a very, very worthwhile medicine which needs to be proven. We need to do the scientific research to demonstrate that to the authorities. I actually believe that the markets for these are large enough to say here we have a real company. We are not medical Robin Hoods.
BT : There's sound business sense behind your decision as well as a moral imperative?
GG: Yes, and l'm sure that will attract claims of the 'corporatisation of cannabis’ - I've heard that one as well. But if it's not corporatised it's not going to become a medicine. And one cannot afford to spent 10 or 20 million pounds, as we will do on this project, to come up with something that will not give a return for my investors.
Other people have said to us "Well you're only in it for the money." Well that's not true. I always find that very upsetting because there's a number of other programmes we could have done. What people forget is that before a pharmaceutical company has a chance of making any, it has to risk an enormous amount before that. It is important for a company like ours to ensure that the funding is right. Clearly, with our security conditions and things like that, we can't have any risk of being under- funded. So we are always very, very keen to hear from people that would wish us well and do so with their cheque book.
BT : One other question: Alan Rocks just announced that the trials are going to go ahead in Canada. At the same time he's listed some 16 people who are going to be allowed to cultivate and possess and use cannabis as o raw medicine for themselves. And then we see in America the buyer's clubs are actually thriving and various states are allowing them, although there's lots of controversy about that. Do you find that moves to allow medical users to grow their own cannabis hinder or help the public perception of the scientific approach?
GG: That is an interesting one. There are many, many questions involved. There are political questions, there are moral questions, there are legal questions, there are social questions and any action by any group may answer a set of questions for one group and create more questions for another group. l'm clearly aware that our programme has proceeded under an environment of governmental approval and sanction. This is not like Holland where the government turns a blind eye, the government has had to take positive steps in the UK. I think that in Canada it's the same. Anything that keeps the programme moving forwards and brings the more conservative parts of the community or the authorities behind our programme is good. On the other hand, can people do something that would immediately upset the public s perception? I think a year or 18 months ago yes. Had people made a mockery of our programme, or had the press called me "Doctor Pot' or something like thatI think people would have taken the wrong view. Fortunately I think over the last couple of years this whole issue has been taken very very seriously. We've been very, very fortunate that the momentum that was built in these different ways has been somewhat crystallised in the views of the House of Lords and the Institute of Medicine and that we ourselves have gone from being mavericks and radicals to almost establishment. I wouldnt like to say were impervious, but the programme now is probably bigger than some of the individual views that people put across in that regard. I would say that this programme will withstand all sorts of things. Essentially, this medical programme is moving on.
BT : Doctor Guy thank you very much
What IS CBC?
During this Interview several acronyms are used mostly to refer to substances known as cannabinoids
Cannabinoids are cyclic hydrocarbons derived from a terpene molecule and a cyclic acid molecule and are found only in the cannabis plant. Some, such as THC, have strong psychoactive properties, some have mainly physiological effects and others have very little known effect.
Below is a list of some of the most common acronyms used in cannabis botany and the full name of the substances they refer to :-
CBC - Cannabichromene
CBD - Cannabidol - We have now created a section for cannabis seeds that show the CBD content. You can find this here. CBD content Cannabis Seeds
CBDV - Cannabidiverol
CBG - Cannabigerol
CBN - Cannabinol
CBNV - Cannabiverol
CBT - Cannabitriol
CCY - Cannabicyclol
THCV - Tetrahydrocannabiverol
You can find our range of high quality medical cannabis seeds in our ever expanding medical cannabis seed section here. The Original Sensible Seed Co Medicinal cannabis seeds section
Out of stock