Also known as: Haze · Haze A · Haze B · Haze Brothers Haze · Pure Haze

Original Haze

The 1960s California sativa landrace hybrid that became the genetic backbone of modern cannabis breeding.

Sourced and fact-checked
7 cited sources
Published 2 months ago
How this page was made
↯ The honest take

Original Haze is one of the most genuinely important cultivars in cannabis history — not because of any single chemotype, but because nearly every modern sativa-leaning hybrid traces back to it. That said: what's sold as 'Haze' today is almost never the original 1970s plant. The real Haze was a heterogeneous seed line maintained by a small group of breeders, lost to most growers by the 1990s. Treat any 'Original Haze' label with skepticism unless you know the source.

Overview

Original Haze is a sativa-dominant cannabis line developed in Santa Cruz County, California in the late 1960s and early 1970s by two breeders commonly referred to as the 'Haze Brothers.' Anecdote It is not a single stabilized cultivar but a polyhybrid seed line built from imported equatorial sativas, and its phenotypes were notoriously variable. [1][2]

Its historical importance is hard to overstate. Through Sam 'the Skunkman' Selgnij and later Neville Schoenmakers of The Seed Bank of Holland, Haze genetics entered European breeding pools in the 1980s, where they became the sativa half of countless modern hybrids — Northern Lights #5 x Haze, Jack Herer, Super Silver Haze, Amnesia Haze, and most contemporary 'Haze' commercial strains. [1][3]

What almost no one sells today is the actual original line. Surviving Haze cuts (often labeled 'Haze A' and 'Haze B') are held by a small number of breeders and collectors, and the seed stock that produced them is generally considered lost. Disputed

Lineage (and why it's disputed)

The most commonly cited parentage is Colombian Gold × Mexican (Acapulco Gold or similar) × South Indian × Thai, blended over several generations. [1][2] This account comes primarily from interviews with Sam Selgnij and Neville Schoenmakers, plus secondary reporting in cannabis press from the 1990s onward.

Problems with the standard story:

Treat the lineage as broadly accurate in outline, unverifiable in detail.

Chemistry: cannabinoids and terpenes

There is no published peer-reviewed chemotyping of the original 1970s Haze line. No data Any numbers you see attributed to 'Original Haze' come from modern descendants or selected cuts, not the source population.

Cannabinoids. Modern Haze-labeled flower typically tests 15–22% THC with negligible CBD (<1%), but older laboratory analyses of 1970s–1980s sativa imports — the genetic neighborhood Haze came from — generally showed total THC in the 5–12% range. [4] The 'Haze is always sky-high THC' framing is largely a product of modern selection.

Terpenes. Surviving Haze A and Haze B cuts are commonly reported as terpinolene-dominant, with secondary myrcene, ocimene, and caryophyllene, and a distinctive spicy/incense/citrus profile. Weak / limited[5] This is based on lab panels of modern cuts shared by breeders and dispensaries, not on the original seed line.

Ignore claims that any specific terpene threshold (e.g. the often-repeated 'myrcene >0.5% = couchlock') predicts effects. That's folklore, not pharmacology. Disputed

Reported effects

Important caveat: there are no controlled clinical studies of Original Haze or any other named cultivar. No data Everything below is user-reported, drawn from decades of grower and consumer accounts, and confounded by dose, individual biology, and the fact that 'Haze' means many different plants.

Commonly reported effects across Haze-lineage flower include:

The sativa/indica binary that gets used to explain these effects is not supported by chemotype data. [6] If Haze descendants feel different from, say, Granddaddy Purple descendants, it's more likely driven by terpene profile, THC dose, and expectancy effects than by some essential 'sativa-ness.'

Cultivation basics

Original Haze is famous for being difficult, and the reputation is earned.

Most commercial 'Haze' seeds available today are F1 hybrids bred to shorten flowering time and increase yield while preserving the terpene profile. Expect those to behave very differently from a true Haze pheno.

Marketing vs. reality

Claim: 'This is Original Haze.' Reality: Almost certainly not. The original seed line is generally considered unavailable commercially. What's sold as Original Haze is typically a modern Haze-dominant hybrid. Disputed

Claim: 'Haze is a pure sativa.' Reality: Haze is a polyhybrid of multiple equatorial sativas — there's no such thing as a 'pure' anything after several generations of open crossing. The pure-sativa label is marketing shorthand.

Claim: 'Haze gives a clean, cerebral high because it's sativa.' Reality: The indica/sativa distinction does not reliably predict effects in modern chemotyped cannabis. [6] Whatever you feel from Haze-lineage flower is driven by its specific cannabinoid and terpene profile, dose, and your own neurochemistry — not its taxonomic label.

Claim: 'Original Haze tests at 25%+ THC.' Reality: True Haze phenotypes historically tested lower than modern hybrids. High-THC 'Haze' on dispensary shelves reflects modern selection and (often) inflated lab numbers. [7]

Sources

  1. Book Clarke, R. C., & Merlin, M. D. (2013). Cannabis: Evolution and Ethnobotany. University of California Press.
  2. Reported Bienenstock, D. (2017). 'The Secret History of Haze.' High Times.
  3. Book Rosenthal, E. (2010). Marijuana Grower's Handbook. Quick American Publishing.
  4. Peer-reviewed ElSohly, M. A., Mehmedic, Z., Foster, S., Gon, C., Chandra, S., & Church, J. C. (2016). Changes in cannabis potency over the last 2 decades (1995–2014). Biological Psychiatry, 79(7), 613–619.
  5. Peer-reviewed Smith, C. J., Vergara, D., Keegan, B., & Jikomes, N. (2022). The phytochemical diversity of commercial Cannabis in the United States. PLOS ONE, 17(5), e0267498.
  6. Peer-reviewed 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.
  7. Peer-reviewed Jikomes, N., & Zoorob, M. (2018). The cannabinoid content of legal cannabis in Washington State varies systematically across testing facilities and popular consumer products. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 4519.

How this page was made

Generation history

Mar 9, 2026
Fact-check pass — raised 4 flags
Mar 8, 2026
Initial draft

Drafting assistance and fact-check automation are used, with a human operator spot-checking on a weekly basis. See how articles are made.