Type II Chemotype (Mixed THC/CBD Cannabis)
Cannabis plants with roughly equal THC and CBD, determined by genetics at the cannabinoid synthase locus.
Type II is not a terpene—it's a cannabinoid profile determined by genetics. CBD does not cancel out THC; it has its own effects and can modulate some aspects of THC's action, but the human evidence for this is mixed and dose-dependent. Lab-tested ratios matter far more than strain names. Ignore 'entourage effect' marketing; the research is suggestive but thinner than dispensaries claim.
What a chemotype actually is
A chemotype is a classification of cannabis plants based on which cannabinoids they produce in significant amounts, regardless of morphology or commercial strain name. Ernest Small and H. D. Beckstead proposed the original three-chemotype scheme in 1973 after analyzing hundreds of accessions: Type I is THC-dominant, Type II carries similar amounts of THC and CBD, and Type III is CBD-dominant [1] Strong evidence. Later work added Type IV (CBG-dominant, lacking functional THCAS and CBDAS synthases) and Type V (essentially cannabinoid-free fiber hemp) [2] Strong evidence.
Type II specifically refers to plants whose flowers contain THCA and CBDA in roughly comparable quantities—most researchers use a THC:CBD ratio between about 0.5 and 2.0 as the working definition, though cutoffs vary by paper [3] Strong evidence. This 'mixed' profile is genetic: these plants are heterozygous at the cannabinoid synthase locus, carrying one BT allele (encoding THCA synthase) and one BD allele (encoding CBDA synthase). Both enzymes compete for the same precursor, cannabigerolic acid (CBGA), so the plant produces both acidic cannabinoids [4] Strong evidence.
Important clarification: Type II chemotype is not a terpene and does not describe aroma or flavor. Terpene profile segregates independently from cannabinoid chemotype. A Type II plant can produce any terpene combination—citrus, pine, fuel, or floral—depending on its separate terpene synthase alleles.
The genetics in one paragraph
In 2003, Etienne de Meijer and colleagues demonstrated that THC:CBD ratio in cannabis segregates as if controlled by a single locus with two co-dominant alleles, BT and BD [4] Strong evidence. BT/BT plants are Type I (THC-dominant), BD/BD plants are Type III (CBD-dominant), and BT/BD heterozygotes are Type II (mixed). Subsequent sequencing revealed that BT and BD are actually tightly linked but distinct genes (THCAS and CBDAS) rather than true alleles, with non-functional pseudogene copies complicating inheritance patterns [5] Strong evidence. The practical consequence is the same: cross a reliable Type I with a reliable Type III and the F1 generation will be Type II. This makes Type II chemotype predictable and reproducible through breeding.
Where you'll encounter Type II flower
Type II chemotypes were rare in the illicit market through the late 20th century because cultivation selected aggressively for THC maximization. They re-entered the legal market through medical cannabis programs that valued CBD content. Cultivars consistently reported as Type II in chemical analyses include:
- Cannatonic — frequently tests around 1:1 THC:CBD, serving as the genetic backbone of many later balanced cultivars Strong evidence
- Harlequin — often reported in the 5:2 CBD:THC range, sitting at the Type II/Type III boundary Weak / limited
- Pennywise, Sweet and Sour Widow, Argyle, and various CBD Critical Mass lines Anecdote
Lab-reported ratios for any given branded strain vary widely between growers and harvests due to environmental factors and cultivation practices, so the chemotype label derived from chemical analysis is more reliable than the strain name alone. GW Pharmaceuticals' nabiximols (Sativex), a pharmaceutical spray approved in multiple countries for MS spasticity, is produced from two proprietary chemovars—one Type I and one Type III—blended to deliver an approximately 1:1 THC:CBD ratio, effectively a manufactured Type II profile [6] Strong evidence.
What the human evidence actually shows
Claims about Type II effects are often oversold. Here is what the research actually supports:
CBD reducing THC-induced anxiety and psychotomimetic effects. Some controlled human studies have found that CBD attenuates THC's anxiogenic and psychotomimetic effects [7], but other well-designed studies have not reproduced this effect, and the response appears dose-dependent and potentially bidirectional—low-dose CBD may even potentiate anxiety in some individuals [8] Disputed. This is not settled evidence; it is an active area of disagreement.
Nabiximols for multiple sclerosis spasticity. The strongest clinical evidence for a balanced THC:CBD product comes from randomized controlled trials of nabiximols in MS spasticity, where it is approved in numerous countries [6] Strong evidence. However, this does not automatically generalize to smoked or vaporized Type II flower at uncontrolled doses, different cannabinoid ratios, and variable terpene profiles.
'Entourage effect' claims. The popular assertion that balanced THC:CBD produces a qualitatively different, more therapeutic, or more 'rounded' high than THC alone is pharmacologically plausible and partially supported by in vitro and animal studies, but the human clinical data are substantially thinner than marketing suggests [9] Weak / limited.
What is established: At matched THC doses, Type II flower delivers meaningful CBD, and CBD has its own pharmacology independent of THC—including 5-HT1A partial agonism, weak CB1 negative allosteric modulation, and effects on FAAH and adenosine signaling [10] Strong evidence. What remains unclear: whether a given individual consumer at a given dose will notice a subjective difference compared to THC-only flower, or whether any difference is clinically significant.
Type II in context: the chemotype system
Quick reference to understand how Type II fits:
- Type I — THC-dominant (>90% of cannabinoids as THC), CBD essentially absent. The standard recreational and illicit market profile.
- Type II — Mixed THC and CBD in roughly equal proportions, the subject of this article.
- Type III — CBD-dominant, THC typically under 0.3–1%. Most legal hemp flower and many CBD-focused products.
- Type IV — CBG-dominant; the plant lacks functional THCAS and CBDAS genes so CBGA is not converted downstream into THC or CBD precursors [2] Strong evidence.
- Type V — Near-zero total cannabinoids, found in some fiber hemp accessions [2] Weak / limited.
Chemotype is independent of the (disputed) indica/sativa morphology classification and independent of terpene profile. See Chemotype for a full explanation. A Type II plant can smell like anything—citrus, pine, diesel, or floral—depending on its terpene synthase alleles, which segregate separately from the cannabinoid synthases.
Practical notes for consumers
If you're considering Type II flower:
- Read the certificate of analysis. Ignore the strain name and look at the lab-tested THC and CBD percentages. An 8% THC / 8% CBD product (true 1:1) will behave very differently from an 18% THC / 6% CBD product labeled 'balanced'—the latter is barely Type II and will feel much closer to a Type I experience.
- Dose matters. At very low doses (single inhalations, 2.5–5 mg THC equivalents orally), effects are subtle and CBD's modulation of THC may be perceptible. At high doses, both cannabinoids are psychoactive; CBD does not 'cancel out' THC Disputed.
- Individual variability is high. Some users report that balanced THC:CBD products feel smoother or less anxiogenic; others report no difference. Pharmacogenetic and individual variation in endocannabinoid signaling likely play a role, but this is not well-studied in humans.
- Avoid folklore. Popular claims that CBD blocks THC's high or that mixing cannabinoids guarantees a medical benefit are marketing shortcuts, not established facts.
Sources
- Peer-reviewed Small, E. & Beckstead, H. D. (1973). Common cannabinoid phenotypes in 350 stocks of Cannabis. Lloydia, 36(2), 144–165.
- Peer-reviewed Mandolino, G., Bagatta, M., Carboni, A., Ranalli, P. & de Meijer, E. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative aspects of the inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis. Journal of Industrial Hemp, 8(2), 51–72.
- Peer-reviewed Hillig, K. W. & Mahlberg, P. G. (2004). A chemotaxonomic analysis of cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae). American Journal of Botany, 91(6), 966–975.
- Peer-reviewed de Meijer, E. P. M., Bagatta, M., Carboni, A., Crucitti, P., Moliterni, V. M. C., Ranalli, P. & Mandolino, G. (2003). The inheritance of chemical phenotype in Cannabis sativa L. Genetics, 163(1), 335–346.
- Peer-reviewed Weiblen, G. D., Wenger, J. P., Craft, K. J., ElSohly, M. A., Mehmedic, Z., Treiber, E. L. & Marks, M. D. (2015). Gene duplication and divergence affecting drug content in Cannabis sativa. New Phytologist, 208(4), 1241–1250.
- Peer-reviewed Russo, E. B. & Guy, G. W. (2006). A tale of two cannabinoids: the therapeutic rationale for combining tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Medical Hypotheses, 66(2), 234–246.
- Peer-reviewed Englund, A., Morrison, P. D., Nottage, J., et al. (2013). Cannabidiol inhibits THC-elicited paranoid symptoms and hippocampal-dependent memory impairment. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 27(1), 19–27.
- Peer-reviewed Haney, M., Malcolm, R. J., Babalonis, S., et al. (2016). Oral cannabidiol does not alter the subjective, reinforcing or cardiovascular effects of smoked cannabis. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41(8), 1974–1982.
- Peer-reviewed Russo, E. B. (2011). Taming THC: potential cannabis synergy and phytocannabinoid-terpenoid entourage effects. British Journal of Pharmacology, 163(7), 1344–1364.
- Peer-reviewed Britch, S. C., Babalonis, S. & Walsh, S. L. (2021). Cannabidiol: pharmacology and therapeutic targets. Psychopharmacology, 238(1), 9–28.
How this page was made
Generation history
Drafted with AI assistance and checked by a separate automated fact-check pass. Not every article has been read by a person. See how articles are made.
Related
- Chemotype — Plant classification by cannabinoid ratio, not genetics or morphology.
- Genotype — The complete DNA blueprint a plant inherits from its parents.
- The Indica/Sativa Myth — The popular classification system contradicts genetics, chemistry, and controlled research...
- Type I Chemotype (THC-Dominant) — High-THC, low-CBD cannabis defined by cannabinoid genetics and enzyme function.
- Why Terpenes Matter (Or Don't) — Terpenes drive scent and flavor; effects claims are mostly preclinical or anecdotal.