I'm not overlooking them, I'm just explaining why it's not unreasonable that pharmacies MIGHT. The evidence for
THC is stronger and more abundant than terpene science, and a lot less complicated, therefore it's totally reasonable that when a pharmacy sells you medical cannabis, their main priority is to sell you
THC of a given % in the form of vaporisable flower.
For example, if it was discovered that the effects of paracetamol can be modified in 100 different ways by the presence in varying concentrations of 100s of different proteins, do you expect that pharmaceutical companies will all run out and spend millions on studies to determine the effect of every combination of all of these 100s of proteins, etc? No, I don't expect that they would. Instead they would say "we sell paracetamol. It's reliable, it's simple, it's cheap, it works, and it's well studied, like it or lump it". Those effects would be real, potentially some combos could be life-changing for some individuals. But the sheer complexity of it makes it almost impossible to actually nail that down in any scientifically rigorous way.
I'm not saying terpenes don't matter, don't have an effect, etc. I'm simply saying that science is both complicated, expensive, and very, very, immature, so to expect a pharmaceutical company to produce drugs based on how their patients "feel" instead of waiting for that science to become mature and then acting from that point is just not how that industry works or should work.
So that's why I doubt any pharmacies are going to go to the bother of adding synthetic terpenes to their products. It's just so much less hassle to say "terpenes? What are those? We'll respond to complaints about terpenes once the science shows its a vital part of the medicine well punt".
The combinatorics alone makes terpene science so complex that we are many, many, many years away from terpene science being much more than a highly individualised set of anecdotes.
.... 
