Inzane in the Membrane (Cannabis flos S-LAB): leading caryophyllene and undisclosed lineage
Sativa dominant from one producer, with the terpene profile recorded only in one place. We gather what can be verified about this strain and name what cannot be verified.
| Strain card | Inzane in the Membrane |
|---|---|
| Producers | S-LAB (1 pharmacy position) |
| Medical brand | the same as the producer |
| Alternative names | none |
| Category according to sources | hybrid with sativa dominance |
| Leading terpene | caryophyllene |
| Other terpenes | humulene ocimene terpinolene |
| Lineage | undetermined |
| Source consistency | one source |
- Who supplies it. Exclusively S-LAB, so there is nothing to compare versions with, and a break in supply means the absence of this strain, not another version of it.
- Profile. Caryophyllene leads, alongside humulene, ocimene, terpinolene. We do not provide percentage shares because sources count them against different totals.
- Origin. Lineage is undetermined. This is a result, not a gap to fill: we do not add parents based on name similarity.
- What is missing. The profile describes one source, so there is nothing to compare it with.
What is Inzane in the Membrane and where does it come from?
Inzane in the Membrane is hemp flower sold in Polish pharmacies under the registered name Cannabis flos S-LAB, described as a hybrid with sativa dominance. The lineage remains undetermined: the breeder has never announced from which pair of plants this strain was created, and available databases do not provide parents.
Undetermined lineage is a common result in this context, not a flaw: parents remain out of reach for twenty-five of the eighty-five cultivars reaching Polish pharmacies. The reason may be the breeder’s silence or two conflicting versions circulating in seed databases. Entering a probable ancestor in such a place would be worse than an empty field, as once a false parent is established, it then travels through subsequent descriptions and after some time begins to look like a fact.
The name also resolves nothing. It is a play on words and contains no information about the plant’s origin. The term Kush appears in this context for ten strains, and half of them have no established parents, so even a repeated word does not say anything about kinship in either direction.
What remains after subtracting the lineage? The registration record and one source that provides the terpene composition and assigns the strain a sativa dominance. That is enough to distinguish this position from neighboring ones on the pharmacy shelf, and decidedly too little to say what it was derived from.
Which producer supplies this strain to Polish pharmacies?
One. The strain is supplied to Polish pharmacies exclusively by S-LAB, and under this name, there is no competing version that could be compared with it. The registered label reads Cannabis flos S-LAB, the declared THC content is in the range of 19.8-24.2%, and CBD does not exceed 1%.
| Position | Record for this strain | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Producer | S-LAB | the only supplier of this name to Polish pharmacies |
| Registered name | Cannabis flos S-LAB | the numerical part from the label is provided separately, as a range |
| THC content | 19.8-24.2% | the declared value increased and decreased by the allowable deviation |
| CBD content | up to 1% | record from the registration label |
| Genetics | hybrid with sativa dominance | classification from one description, not from testing |
| Terpene composition | humulene, caryophyllene, ocimene, terpinolene | without shares, the source does not disclose the total to which they refer |
The registered name is provided without the numerical part. The number entered in this name is the same declared value that producers are allowed to stick to with a deviation of one-tenth, so quoted alone suggests precision that the measurement does not have.
One producer also means one supply chain and one decision about whether the position will even go to Poland. The database from which the description of this strain comes currently marks it as unavailable, which is the state at the moment of data collection, not a feature of the strain itself.
The pharmacy assortment shifts from quarter to quarter: permits expire, deliveries are delayed, wholesalers exhaust batches, and the name disappears from the list for several months, only to return later. Therefore, we keep a record of what can actually be purchased today in one place, in the list of available strains. Separately, we collect what besides this position is supplied by S-LAB.
What does this flower smell and taste like?
- humulene humulene
- caryophyllene caryophyllene (leading in the pharmacy list)
- ocimene ocimene
- terpinolene terpinolene
Citrusy and sour, with an earthy and fruity background. This is how this flower is described by the database that provides anything about it besides the label. The orange-citrus note also returns in the commercial material, although the description of the smell is not a measurement and does not transfer directly to subsequent batches.
The terpene composition recorded for this strain includes humulene, caryophyllene, ocimene, and terpinolene, with caryophyllene taking the first place. We know this from one source: the second database we use for this comparison does not describe this strain at all, so there is nothing to compare it with.
We do not provide shares, and this is not an oversight. In the source record, all listed terpenes sum up for this strain to just under two-thirds of the total, meaning over one-third of the volatile mass remains undescribed. For other positions, this sum comes out quite differently, as each database relates it to something else. A number without a stated total looks in the text about pharmacy raw material like a measurement, although it is not.
The aroma described in words holds weaker than the composition. The sour citrus note may be called orange, lime, or grapefruit peel, depending on who is smelling and what they are after. Hemp flower sold over the counter is a completely different raw material, and we keep it in a separate category to avoid confusion between the two.
How long does it take for this flower to take effect and how long does it last?
Depending on the route of administration, not the strain name. For this cultivar, there is no specific measurement: neither the moment when the first sensation appears nor the duration of the entire episode has been checked separately, so reliably only common ranges for hemp flower can be provided.
The route of administration determines the course more than the strain itself, and the ranges below describe it, not this cultivar, because pharmacokinetic studies for a single cultivar have not been published.
| Vaporization | After ingestion | |
|---|---|---|
| First sensations | after a few minutes | from half an hour to two |
| Onset | another dozen to thirty minutes | slow, over several hours |
| Total duration | within two to four hours | after six, sometimes eight hours |
| Typical error | none | taking a dose after thirty minutes, which gives both doses at once |
What has been shown and what has not been shown in studies on this strain?
Nothing that directly concerns this cultivar. Studies cover individual terpenes, not the mixture contained in this flower, and were conducted on animals or in vitro. The rest of the description, including the designation of the strain as stimulating, comes from commercial material, not from scientific work.
Two studies concern caryophyllene, the terpene indicated as leading in the profile of this strain. We compare them together with the model on which they were conducted, as the model determines more here than the result itself: what is seen in a mouse lacking the CB2 receptor does not automatically transfer to a human inhaling vapor from the flower.
| Study | Model and route of administration | What was shown |
|---|---|---|
| Gertsch J et al., 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) PMID:18574142 |
mouse (in vivo) and in vitro (receptor binding, human cells) | (E)-caryophyllene selectively bound to the CB2 receptor (Ki = 155 nM) and inhibited paw swelling induced by carrageenan in wild-type mice, but not in CB2 receptor-deficient mice (Cnr2-/-), indicating a CB2-dependent mechanism; the study did not include any anxiety tests. |
| Klauke AL et al., 2014 European Neuropsychopharmacology PMID:24210682 |
rodent (mouse) | Oral caryophyllene reduced the late inflammatory phase of pain in the formalin test in a CB2 receptor-dependent manner, with no effect on the early phase; in a neuropathic pain model, it alleviated thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia without developing tolerance with chronic administration. |
In neither of the two studies was caryophyllene tested on humans or in inhaled form from the flower; both works concern oral or systemic administration in mice in pain and inflammation models, not sleep or mood.
Besides these two works, there remains a descriptive layer of a completely different weight. The label of a stimulating strain intended for daytime use was placed by the supplier in the sales material: without trial, without comparison to placebo, without counting anyone. Such a description does not become a lie because of this. It becomes a statement that no one has subjected to a test capable of confirming or overturning it, and no clinical study for this cultivar has been published.
What side effects have been reported after this strain?
None under this name. The reporting system links the description of the event with the medicinal product and the batch number, so the breakdown cannot be listed by strain names. Everything that can be honestly provided here concerns hemp flower as a group, not this one position.
Reports of side effects are collected for the medicinal product with a batch number, not for the strain name, so the following concerns hemp flower as a group of raw materials. The most commonly reported are dry mouth, red eyes, and increased heart rate. Less frequently described are dizziness upon rapid standing, daytime drowsiness, and temporary worsening of short-term memory, as well as anxiety increasing with dosage. A separate issue is medications taken concurrently, especially sedatives and those affecting coagulation: their assessment requires knowledge of the entire list of preparations, not the description of the plant. We do not provide the frequency of these symptoms numerically, as public compilations for hemp flower in Poland do not separate them by individual products.
A report after this flower would therefore go to the registry under the manufacturer’s batch number, not under the trade name of the strain, and would dissolve there in the total for the entire product.
At what temperature is this strain vaporized?
There is no single correct value because there is no single temperature for the entire profile. The four terpenes recorded for this strain boil at different temperatures, and some source data were measured under reduced pressure, which cannot be compared with the heater setting in a vaporizer.
| Terpene from the profile | Source record | Measurement conditions |
|---|---|---|
| humulene | 99-100 degrees Celsius | 3 mmHg, which is well below atmospheric pressure |
| caryophyllene | 256-259 degrees Celsius and 130 degrees Celsius | the first value at 760 mmHg, the second at 14 mmHg |
| ocimene | 177 degrees Celsius | pressure not provided |
| terpinolene | 183-185 degrees Celsius | 760 mmHg; a separate record states 187 degrees without conditions |
The record for caryophyllene shows the problem best. The same substance has two assigned values differing by over one hundred degrees because one was measured at atmospheric pressure and the other at a pressure of several millimeters of mercury. Tables circulating on the internet place such numbers next to each other without providing conditions, resulting in a temperature ranking that describes nothing. We break this down separately in the text about why terpene temperature tables contradict themselves.
The second thing is even easier to miss: the number set on the vaporizer is not the temperature of the flower in the chamber. We write about this difference in the text about the device setting versus the actual temperature of the raw material, and what evaporates from the flower at subsequent thresholds is broken down in the text about evaporating terpenes.
Which strains are related to it?
None can be pointed out. Kinship is derived in this context from established parents, and none have been provided for Inzane in the Membrane, so the network of connections breaks off at this strain. An empty list of siblings is here an answer, not a lack of data.
The criterion is narrow on purpose. Without a confirmed pair of ancestors, there is no basis to connect this strain with any other, and a similar name or similar smell does not create such a basis. In the kinship graph, one guess does not end with one entry, but spreads through the descriptions of all strains that this graph connects.
This does not leave it empty. The strain can be compared along other axes than lineage: through the leading terpene in the profile, described in the text about caryophyllene, or through the other components of this profile, namely humulene, ocimene, and terpinolene. A common terpene is, however, a similarity of composition, not kinship, and should be read as such.
Anyone wanting to compare this strain with what is currently on the pharmacy shelf will find a complete list in the list of available strains. Positions described as daytime are collected separately in a text about daytime strains.
Frequently asked questions
Can Inzane in the Membrane be purchased without a prescription?
No. Hemp flower in this form is a pharmaceutical raw material issued only by a doctor’s prescription, in the Rpw category. No pharmacy will issue it without a prescription, and material available outside pharmacies, even with a similar name, is a different raw material.
What is the THC content in this strain?
The S-LAB label provides one declared value, and the producer is entitled to a deviation equal to one-tenth of that number. Taking this into account, the THC content is in the range of 19.8-24.2%. The CBD content is recorded as not exceeding one percent.
Who bred this strain and what are its parents?
Unknown. Neither the breeder nor the pair of plants from which the strain was created have been provided in available sources, and seed databases do not maintain a genealogical entry for this name. The lineage cannot be guessed from the trade name alone.
Which terpene leads in the profile of this strain?
Caryophyllene. This is indicated by the only record that exists for this strain; alongside it, humulene, ocimene, and terpinolene are mentioned. We do not provide percentage shares because the source does not disclose what total they refer to.
Why do you not provide percentage shares of individual terpenes?
Because it is unknown what these numbers refer to. Records in Polish databases sum up for this strain to just under two-thirds, and for other positions, completely different sums come out, so values from different sources are not comparable.
Have clinical studies been published for this strain?
No. The publications referenced in this text concern an individual terpene studied in mice and under laboratory conditions, not the flower with this name. For the cultivar itself, there is neither a study with a control group nor a published pharmacokinetic measurement.
Hemp flower is a pharmaceutical raw material issued by a doctor’s prescription in the Rpw category. The material is for informational purposes and does not replace medical consultation nor constitutes encouragement for use.
Editorial text: editorial team ubucha.pl.
