The Future of Personalized Cannabis: From One-Size-Fits-All to Your Unique Profile

Here is a question that has probably crossed your mind at least once: why does a strain that sends your friend into a blissful, giggly orbit leave you glued to the couch with a racing heart? It’s not just tolerance. It’s not just mindset. The answer runs far deeper—all the way down to your DNA, your unique endocannabinoid system, and even the bacteria living in your gut.

For decades, cannabis has been sold and consumed under a remarkably crude framework. You walked into a dispensary, picked “indica” for sleep or “sativa” for energy, and hoped for the best. That one-size-fits-all approach is now crumbling under the weight of modern science. Researchers are discovering that the way you experience cannabis is as individual as your fingerprint, shaped by a complex interplay of genetics, biochemistry, lifestyle, and the specific chemical makeup of the plant itself.

The future of cannabis isn’t about finding the “best” strain. It’s about finding your strain—the specific combination of cannabinoids, terpenes, and dosing that aligns with your body’s unique wiring. This is the frontier of personalized cannabis, and it’s closer than you might think.

In this deep dive, we’ll unpack the science driving this revolution. You’ll learn how your endocannabinoid system creates your personal baseline, what pharmacogenomics research reveals about why you respond differently than the person next to you, how terpene chemistry is replacing outdated classification systems, what wearable and AI technologies are bringing to the table, and how to start personalizing your experience right now.

Your Endocannabinoid System: The Master Regulator You Didn’t Know You Had

To understand personalized cannabis, you first need to understand the system it interacts with. Think of your endocannabinoid system (ECS) as your body’s master dimmer switch—a vast regulatory network that fine-tunes everything from mood and pain perception to appetite, immune response, and sleep.

The ECS was only discovered in the early 1990s by researchers studying how THC interacts with the body [Devane et al., 1992]. It consists of three core components:

• Endocannabinoids: Molecules your body produces naturally—like anandamide (the “bliss molecule”) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG)—that are structurally similar to plant cannabinoids
• Receptors: Primarily CB1 (concentrated in the brain and central nervous system) and CB2 (found throughout the immune system and peripheral organs), plus emerging receptors like GPR55 and TRPV1
• Enzymes: Proteins like FAAH and MAGL that break down endocannabinoids after they’ve completed their signaling role

Here is the critical insight: your ECS is not identical to anyone else’s. The density and distribution of your CB1 and CB2 receptors, the baseline levels of your endocannabinoids, and the efficiency of the enzymes that regulate them—all of these vary substantially from person to person. This is your endocannabinoid tone, and it is the foundation upon which every cannabis experience is built [Russo, 2016].

Imagine two stereo systems. Both play the same song (the same strain), but one has the bass cranked up and the treble dialed down, while the other has the opposite configuration. The input is identical; the experience is completely different. That’s what varying endocannabinoid tone does to your cannabis experience.

Clinical Evidence for ECS Variability

A 2016 review published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research found that individual differences in ECS function explain a significant proportion of the variability in cannabis-related effects—including both therapeutic outcomes and adverse reactions. Studies using brain imaging have shown measurable differences in CB1 receptor density across individuals, with some people showing up to 20% variation in receptor availability in the same brain region.

This variability has downstream consequences for everything: how intensely you feel THC’s euphoric effects, how efficiently CBD modulates your anxiety response, and how long effects last. It is the biological reason why a standard “dose” is anything but standard.

Pharmacogenomics: The Code Behind Your Cannabis Response

If the ECS is the stage, pharmacogenomics is the script. Pharmacogenomics is the study of how your genetic makeup influences the way your body processes and responds to drugs—including cannabis. And the findings in this space are genuinely transforming how researchers and clinicians think about cannabis therapy.

A landmark 2023 review in Current Issues in Molecular Biology synthesized the evidence clearly: “Pharmacogenomics can help predict both positive and negative effects of cannabinoids and precisely identify the best treatment and dose for each individual” [Babayeva, 2023]. The same review noted that over 98% of people carry at least one genetic variant that influences how they react to cannabis—meaning virtually no one is metabolizing cannabis “by the book.”

The FAAH Gene: Your Bliss Molecule Baseline

One of the most well-studied genetic variations in the cannabis space involves the FAAH gene, which encodes the enzyme responsible for breaking down anandamide. A specific variant known as FAAH C385A results in a less efficient enzyme, meaning anandamide lingers longer in the brain [Sipe et al., 2002]. People carrying this variant tend to have naturally higher endocannabinoid tone.

Research from Columbia University found that individuals with the C385A variant showed reduced amygdala reactivity to threatening stimuli and reported lower baseline anxiety [Dincheva et al., 2015]. This has implications for cannabis: if your anandamide system is already running hot, you may respond very differently to THC’s modulation of that same system than someone with a more efficient FAAH enzyme.

The CNR1 Gene: Your CB1 Receptor Fingerprint

The CNR1 gene codes for the CB1 receptor itself—the primary target of THC in the brain. Variations in CNR1 have been associated with differences in cannabis response across multiple studies, including susceptibility to cannabis-related anxiety, the intensity of euphoric effects, and even the risk of developing cannabis use disorder (Hartman et al., 2009).

A 2026 pharmacogenetic study published in the Journal of Cannabis Research examined 11 genes—including CNR1, CNR2, COMT, and FAAH—in chronic pain patients using cannabis. The researchers found that specific variants of the CNR1 gene (rs1049353 and rs2023239) were associated with an increased risk of adverse psychological reactions, providing a potential genetic screening tool for clinical practice (Beauchesne et al., 2026).

CYP2C9 and CYP3A4: Your THC Metabolism Engines

Perhaps the most practically important pharmacogenomic findings concern the CYP450 liver enzyme family—the same enzymes that process the majority of pharmaceutical drugs. CYP2C9 is a primary enzyme in THC metabolism, and individuals carry it in several genetically determined variants:

• Rapid metabolizers (CYP2C9 *1/*1): Process THC quickly, often experiencing shorter, less intense effects from the same dose
• Intermediate metabolizers: Fall in the middle range
• Poor metabolizers (CYP2C9 *3/*3 or similar): Break down THC slowly, leading to substantially stronger and longer-lasting effects

This has profound real-world implications, especially for edibles. When you consume an infused product, THC passes through your liver before entering circulation, where CYP2C9 determines how much gets converted to metabolites (including the highly potent 11-hydroxy-THC) and how fast. Two people consuming the identical 10mg edible can have experiences ranging from “barely felt it” to “completely incapacitated” based on this single genetic difference.

CYP3A4 plays a supporting role in cannabinoid metabolism and is also relevant for drug-drug interactions. A 2025 study in Frontiers in Pharmacology found that the CYP3A4 *1/rs2242480 genotype was specifically linked to poor CBD response in drug-resistant epilepsy patients—demonstrating that pharmacogenomic testing could meaningfully guide clinical cannabis decisions (Feria-Romero et al., 2025).

Beyond the ECS: Dopamine, Serotonin, and More

The genetic influences on cannabis response extend well beyond the endocannabinoid system itself. Research implicates variations in genes governing:

• Dopamine signaling (COMT gene): May influence how rewarding and motivating the cannabis experience feels, with potential implications for use patterns
• Serotonin pathways: May affect mood-related responses, particularly for anxiety and depression applications
• BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor): Emerging research links BDNF variants to cannabis-related memory effects
• OPRM1 (opioid receptor): May interact with cannabis’s pain-modulating effects through overlapping neural pathways

The picture emerging from this research is of a profoundly complex, multi-gene system where personalized cannabis response is determined by dozens of interacting variants—not a single “cannabis gene.” This complexity is precisely why AI and machine learning are becoming essential tools in this space.

Beyond Indica vs. Sativa: The Terpene Profile Revolution

If pharmacogenomics is the hardware of personalized cannabis, terpene chemistry is the software that determines how that hardware runs day-to-day.

The indica/sativa binary was never a reliable predictor of effects. Genetically, most modern cannabis is a hybrid with lineage crossing both supposed categories (Piomelli & Russo, 2016). The physical shape of a leaf tells you nothing about which neurotransmitters a strain will modulate. What does predict effects—with increasing scientific support—is the plant’s terpene profile: the aromatic compounds that give each cultivar its distinctive smell and contribute uniquely to its effects through the entourage effect.

A landmark 2025 study published in Communications Medicine [Hatav et al., 2025] used machine learning to analyze the chemical profiles of medical cannabis and their relationship to pain relief outcomes. The finding was striking: incorporating full chemical composition (including terpenes) markedly improved outcome prediction (AUC 0.63) compared to models using only demographics and clinical features (AUC 0.52). Crucially, well-known cannabinoids like THC and CBD provided limited predictive value on their own—while specific terpenes, particularly alpha-bisabolol and eucalyptol, emerged as key predictors of treatment response.

This is the science that validates moving beyond the THC percentage obsession and into full-spectrum terpene profiling.

Key Terpenes and Their Individualized Effects

• Myrcene: The most common terpene in cannabis, myrcene appears to enhance THC’s ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and may intensify sedative effects. High myrcene strains dominate the Relaxing High family classification.
• Limonene: Demonstrates anxiolytic properties in preclinical models and may counteract THC’s anxiety-inducing potential—making it particularly relevant for anxiety-sensitive individuals [de Almeida et al., 2012].
• Beta-caryophyllene: The only terpene known to directly activate cannabinoid receptors (specifically CB2), acting as a dietary cannabinoid with anti-inflammatory properties [Gertsch et al., 2008]. This makes it uniquely relevant for physical discomfort applications.
• Linalool: Shows sedative and anxiolytic effects in preclinical studies, contributing to calming experiences [Guzman-Gutierrez et al., 2015]. Its presence may be a key predictor for cannabis used in sleep and anxiety contexts.
• Terpinolene and ocimene: Associated with more cerebral, energetic effects—consistent with the Energetic High family’s characteristic experience profile.
• Alpha-bisabolol: Less commonly discussed, but now identified by machine learning research as a significant predictor of analgesic response. This exemplifies why minor terpenes deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

The High Families Framework

This terpene-based science is exactly why we developed the High Families classification system at This Is Why I’m High. Rather than relying on the botanically inaccurate indica/sativa labels, High Families groups cannabis cultivars by their dominant terpene chemistry and the experiences those profiles tend to produce:

• The Uplifting High family (limonene and linalool dominant): Mood elevation, social energy, creative spark
• The Energetic High family (terpinolene and ocimene dominant): Focused productivity, alert awareness
• The Relaxing High family (myrcene dominant): Deep physical calm, sedation, sleep support
• The Relieving High family (caryophyllene and humulene dominant): Physical comfort, anti-inflammatory emphasis
• The Balancing High family (moderate, complex profiles): Gentle, beginner-friendly, versatile
• The Entourage High family (rich multi-terpene profiles): Nuanced, full-spectrum experiences that leverage the full entourage effect

When you combine terpene-based classification with an understanding of your own genetic and biochemical individuality, the outlines of a truly personalized system come into focus. You’re not just choosing a strain by vibes—you’re matching a specific chemical fingerprint to your specific biology.

Emerging Technologies: AI, Wearables, and the Personalization Stack

The science of personalized cannabis is still young, but several converging technologies are accelerating its development at a pace that would have seemed implausible just a few years ago.

Genetic Testing for Cannabis Response

Consumer-facing genetic tests for cannabis are already on the market. Companies like Healthogenics, Dynamic DNA Labs, and BluEndo offer saliva-based panels that analyze variants in genes including FAAH, CNR1, CYP2C9, and ABCB1 to produce personalized dosing guidance and strain recommendations. Tests typically examine 13–15 genetic traits and deliver insights across pain sensitivity, THC metabolism speed, anxiety risk, sleep genetics, and potential side effect profiles.

The economic argument for these tests is compelling. Studies show that cannabis patients without genetic guidance try an average of 5–7 different products before finding one that works. A 2026 analysis from Elios Clinics found that pharmacogenomics-guided cannabis care reduced adverse reactions from 27.7% to 21% and generated estimated savings of up to £3,200 per patient through reduced trial-and-error waste.

The important caveat: Current consumer genetic tests are useful starting points, not definitive oracles. Cannabis response is determined by dozens of interacting genes plus environmental factors, and the research base for many specific gene-outcome links remains limited. Treat genetic testing as one powerful layer of your personalization stack—not the whole answer.

AI-Driven Strain and Product Matching

A November 2025 research paper in Personalized Cannabis Medicine (Almobaideen, Kaur & Ahmad, 2025) outlined the architecture for AI-driven cannabis personalization: machine learning models trained on large-scale clinical, genomic, and phenotypic datasets can predict patient-specific responses to different strains and dosage regimens with meaningful accuracy. The paper describes applications including individualized strain selection, dynamic dosage optimization, adverse effect prediction, and therapeutic outcome forecasting.

Early commercial implementations are already appearing. Platforms like Terpli use AI to match consumers to products based on terpene and cannabinoid profiles cross-referenced with reported effects and verified purchase reviews—essentially building a chemical preference model for each user that improves with every interaction. Veriheal and similar services are integrating AI with medical records and reported symptoms to generate safer, more targeted recommendations. The trajectory points toward systems that will eventually incorporate genetic data alongside behavioral data for genuinely multi-dimensional matching.

Wearable Data Integration

One of the most forward-looking developments in personalized cannabis is the integration of wearable biometric data. Smartwatches and fitness trackers continuously monitor heart rate variability, sleep quality, stress biomarkers, and activity—all of which can serve as objective measures of cannabis response.

Rather than relying solely on self-reported “how did it make you feel?” data (which is notoriously imprecise and subjective), wearable-integrated cannabis platforms can observe how your physiology actually responds. If your heart rate variability consistently improves on nights when you use a myrcene-dominant product but not on terpinolene-dominant nights, that’s signal. If your sleep architecture data (tracked via your smartwatch’s sleep stages) shows more deep sleep after certain products, that’s personalized evidence no questionnaire can replicate.

AI research papers in this space specifically highlight wearable integration as one of the most promising near-term developments (Almobaideen et al., 2025; Veriheal, 2025). The feedback loop—consume, measure, learn, refine—has the potential to deliver personalization precision that no human consultant could match at scale.

Multi-Omics: The Next Frontier

Beyond single-gene testing, the long-range vision in personalized cannabis medicine involves multi-omics integration: combining data from genomics (your DNA), metabolomics (the metabolites currently circulating in your body), proteomics (your protein expression patterns), and microbiomics (your gut bacteria composition) to build a comprehensive biological portrait.

The microbiome connection is particularly intriguing. Emerging evidence suggests that gut bacteria may influence endocannabinoid signaling and cannabinoid metabolism through the gut-brain axis (Cani et al., 2016). If your gut microbiome affects how efficiently you absorb and process cannabinoids, then dietary and probiotic interventions could theoretically become tools for optimizing cannabis response—a frontier that has barely been explored.

Multi-omics approaches are currently research-stage, but the pace of development in related fields (personalized nutrition, precision oncology) suggests that cannabis will benefit from those methodological advances within the next decade.

What This Means for You Right Now

You don’t need to wait for a genetic test or an AI recommendation engine to start personalizing your cannabis experience. The science points clearly toward several practical strategies available today.

1. Build a Cannabis Journal

The single most powerful personalization tool available right now costs nothing: a cannabis journal. Record the cultivar name, its dominant terpenes (ask your budtender or read the lab report on the packaging), the dose, the consumption method, the time of day, your baseline mood and stress level, and how you felt during and after. Over time, clear patterns emerge. You may find that limonene-dominant cultivars consistently lift your mood while caryophyllene-heavy ones provide better physical relief. That is personalized data generated by your own biology—more reliable than any generalized recommendation.

2. Think in High Families, Not Indica/Sativa

When evaluating a new product, skip the indica/sativa question entirely. Instead, identify what experience you want and cross-reference it with the High Families framework. Seeking creative social energy? Explore the Uplifting High family. Need physical comfort after a long day? Start with the Relieving High family. This terpene-based approach is more scientifically grounded and far more likely to deliver consistent, repeatable results across different brands and cultivars.

3. Know Your Metabolism Type

If edibles consistently hit you harder and longer than your peers, you may be a slow THC metabolizer (likely carrying a variant CYP2C9 genotype). Start with lower doses—2.5mg to 5mg—and wait at least two hours before reassessing. Conversely, if standard doses consistently underperform, you may metabolize THC rapidly. Understanding your metabolic pattern is a form of personalization that dramatically improves both safety and satisfaction, and it requires no technology—just honest observation over time.

4. Pay Attention to Minor Cannabinoids

THC percentage is a terrible predictor of experience quality. Increasingly, research and patient reports suggest that minor cannabinoids—CBG, CBN, THCV, CBC, CBDv—contribute meaningfully to the overall effect profile (Nachnani et al., 2021). Seek products with complete cannabinoid profiles listed, not just THC and CBD percentages. A flower with 18% THC and a rich terpene and minor cannabinoid profile may deliver a far more therapeutic and satisfying experience than a 30% THC product with a stripped-down chemical profile.

5. Leverage the Entourage Effect Through Full-Spectrum Products

Isolated cannabinoids have legitimate uses, but if you’re seeking the most nuanced and personalized experience, full-spectrum or whole-plant products leverage the complete entourage effect—the synergistic interaction between cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids that no isolated compound can replicate. This is where the interplay between your unique biology and the plant’s complete chemical profile truly shines.

The Road Ahead

The convergence of pharmacogenomics, advanced terpene chemistry, AI recommendation systems, and wearable biometrics is not a distant fantasy. It is an active frontier with real research, real products, and real early adopters already benefiting from it.

What’s becoming clear is that the cannabis industry’s historical reliance on crude proxies—indica vs. sativa, THC percentage, and generic strain naming—was not just scientifically lazy. It was actively leaving therapeutic and experiential value on the table for millions of consumers whose bodies were never going to respond to the “average” product in the average way.

The future of personalized cannabis looks something like this: a consumer takes a genetic test that identifies their CYP2C9 metabolizer status, CNR1 receptor variants, and FAAH enzyme efficiency. That data is combined with their reported preferences, medical history, and wearable biometric patterns by an AI system that cross-references a database of rigorously profiled cannabis products matched by full terpene and cannabinoid panel. The recommendation is a specific product—or a family of products—with a specific dose, timing, and consumption method, calibrated to that individual’s biology. Over time, feedback from each session refines the model.

That vision is not science fiction. The building blocks are already in place. What remains is the clinical validation, regulatory framework, and data infrastructure to bring it to scale.

In the meantime, you have more tools than ever before—and a scientific framework that respects your biological individuality rather than flattening it.

Key Takeaways

• Your cannabis experience is biologically unique. Genetic variations in your endocannabinoid system, CYP450 liver enzymes, and neurotransmitter pathways mean no two people respond to the same strain identically.
• Over 98% of people carry genetic variants that affect cannabis response. Pharmacogenomics research is revealing why personalized guidance outperforms one-size-fits-all recommendations in both safety and efficacy.
• Terpenes are better predictors of effects than THC percentage or indica/sativa labels. Machine learning studies confirm that full chemical profiles—especially specific terpenes—significantly outperform simple cannabinoid data for predicting outcomes.
• The High Families classification system provides a terpene-based framework for choosing cannabis that is scientifically grounded and practically useful today.
• AI, genetic testing, and wearables are converging to make genuinely personalized cannabis recommendations possible at consumer scale—still early, but developing fast.
• You can start personalizing today. A cannabis journal, terpene awareness, and honest observation of your metabolic patterns are powerful tools that require no technology—just attention.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a genetic test really tell me which cannabis to use?

Current consumer genetic tests can provide useful insights—particularly around THC metabolism speed and potential anxiety sensitivity—but they are not comprehensive enough to serve as your sole guide. Cannabis response involves dozens of interacting genes plus environmental and lifestyle factors. Think of genetic testing as one powerful layer of your personalization stack, not the complete picture. The science is advancing rapidly, and the accuracy and breadth of these tests will improve substantially over the next few years.

Is the indica/sativa classification completely useless?

It is not useless for describing plant morphology (leaf shape, growth structure), but it is scientifically unreliable for predicting effects. Most modern cannabis is genetically hybridized, and the plant’s physical shape tells you nothing about its terpene profile or how it will interact with your ECS. The High Families system is a more scientifically grounded and practically useful framework for making experience-based selections.

Why do edibles affect me so differently than smoking?

When you inhale cannabis, THC enters your bloodstream through the lungs and reaches your brain relatively quickly. When you eat it, THC passes through your liver first, where CYP2C9 and related enzymes convert a portion of it into 11-hydroxy-THC—a metabolite that is more potent and longer-lasting than THC itself. Your genetic metabolizer status determines how much 11-hydroxy-THC is produced and how quickly it is cleared. This is why the same dose can feel completely different between individuals, and why edibles warrant a much more cautious, start-low-go-slow approach for nearly everyone.

What is endocannabinoid tone and why does it matter?

Endocannabinoid tone refers to the baseline activity level of your endocannabinoid system—determined by your natural levels of anandamide and 2-AG, the density and sensitivity of your CB1 and CB2 receptors, and the efficiency of the enzymes that break down endocannabinoids. Someone with high natural endocannabinoid tone may find that cannabis has a more subtle effect (their system is already operating at a high set point), while someone with low tone may experience more pronounced responses to the same product. Lifestyle factors including exercise, sleep quality, and stress levels also modulate endocannabinoid tone, meaning your optimal cannabis experience may shift with your overall wellness state.

Are AI cannabis recommendation tools accurate yet?

Early AI recommendation tools show meaningful promise but are still limited by data quality and breadth. Most current systems rely primarily on self-reported experience data, which is inherently subjective and inconsistent. As these platforms incorporate genetic data, verified lab panels, and objective biometric measurements (from wearables), their accuracy will improve substantially. The 2025 machine learning study in Communications Medicine demonstrated that AI models using full chemical profiles achieved significantly better pain outcome prediction than any single-variable approach—a proof of concept that the multi-factor AI model is the right direction even if today’s consumer tools are not yet there.

Sources

1. Babayeva, M., & Loewy, Z. G. (2023). Cannabis pharmacogenomics: A path to personalized medicine. Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 45(4), 3479–3514. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb45040228
2. Beauchesne, W., Turcotte, J., Mercier, P., et al. (2026). Pharmacogenetic association study of cannabis use in chronic pain. Journal of Cannabis Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42238-026-00408-w
3. Bonn-Miller, M. O., et al. (2017). Self-reported cannabis use characteristics, patterns and helpfulness among medical cannabis users. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 40(1), 23–30.
4. Cani, P. D., et al. (2016). Endocannabinoids—at the crossroads between the gut microbiota and host metabolism. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 12(3), 133–143.
5. de Almeida, J., et al. (2012). Anxiolytic-like effects of limonene in rodent models of anxiety. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 101(2), 290–294.
6. Devane, W. A., et al. (1992). Isolation and structure of a brain constituent that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Science, 258(5090), 1946–1949.
7. Dincheva, I., et al. (2015). FAAH genetic variation enhances fronto-amygdala function in mouse and human. Nature Communications, 6, 6395.
8. Feria-Romero, I. A., et al. (2025). Analysis of six CYP450 genetic variants regarding the response to cannabidiol combined with anticonvulsant medication in Mexican patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 16, 1626054.
9. Gertsch, J., et al. (2008). Beta-caryophyllene is a dietary cannabinoid. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(26), 9099–9104.
10. Guzmán-Gutiérrez, S. L., et al. (2015). Linalool and beta-pinene exert their antidepressant-like activity through the monoaminergic pathway. Life Sciences, 128, 24–29.
11. Hartman, C. A., et al. (2009). The association between cannabis use and affective disorders in a New Zealand birth cohort. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(6), 431–440.
12. Hatav, A., Vysotski, Y., Shapira, A., et al. (2025). Machine-learning of medical cannabis chemical profiles reveals analgesia beyond placebo expectations. Communications Medicine, 5, 295. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43856-025-00996-3
13. Nachnani, R., et al. (2021). The psychiatric side effects of medicinal cannabis. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 10(2), 322.
14. Piomelli, D., & Russo, E. B. (2016). The cannabis sativa versus cannabis indica debate: An interview with Ethan Russo, MD. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 44–46.
15. Russo, E. B. (2011). Taming THC: Potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. British Journal of Pharmacology, 163(7), 1344–1364.
16. Russo, E. B. (2016). Clinical endocannabinoid deficiency reconsidered. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research, 1(1), 154–165.
17. Sachse-Seeboth, C., et al. (2009). Interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as related to genetic polymorphisms in CYP2C9. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 85(3), 273–276.
18. Sipe, J. C., et al. (2002). A missense mutation in human fatty acid amide hydrolase associated with problem drug use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 8394–8399.