THC effects on the brain(it's not good, apparently)

[chef]

The circus just called, their clown is missing...

 

[dopey the clown]

Yes, they do like to repeat this lie over and over. Apparently, it seems you've fallen for it.

Please. No need to be condescending.

You can still find bunk weed today. What's your point?

My point is that the quoted user misinterpreted a straightforward observation that ultimately lead to a conclusion.

Perhaps you should look at Holland's stats, the increase in 'average' potency isn't anywhere close to as exaggerated as the phony stats presented in the US.

Those stats would be largely irrelevant to the discussion, as I was simply correcting what I view as a misinterpretation of a statement made by the researchers in conjunction with the data.
I would still be interested in seeing the data as an aside, though, if you feel like producing it.

People lie with statistics, and the major component of this lie is that the average has not increased because top shelf cannabis is so much better, but because low level THC cannabis has found itself removed from the distribution chain. .Kind of like the misleading statistic that people born in 1900 had an average age at death in the low 40s. But did you know that the people that turned 1 in 1901 had and average age at death of almost 70? Can you explain that considering that every person that turned 1 in 1901 was born in 1900? The answer is they didn't die as infants.

I agree that these stats can be misinterpreted. I wouldn't say they are intentionally misleading, though.

Perhaps when you learn that these people have no compunction in lying, fabricating, and manipulating statistics will you understand the controversy.

Again with the condescension. It is of course true that scientific research has flaws, but alas it is the best method we have to interpret data. Why do you keep speaking in theoretical, generalist terms here? We all agree that scientists aren't perfect. Let's talk specifically about this study, which I find particularly interesting. Are you implying that the researchers intentionally BS'ed the data to form an anti-cannabis consensus?

The lie that cannabis is so different than it was decades ago is a very convenient fiction for the prohibitionists, as it changes the landscape for those who used in the '60s and '70s and recall just how innocuous cannabis is. Well, if authority tells them that somehow cannabis is different than the experience they had in college it shut them down and allows the prohibitionists to continue their campaign of lies. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient".

...it is different. It's significantly "stronger" by any reasonable interpretation of what "stronger" means. It's the same species, but as you said, the weaker stuff has been (generally)removed from the food chain. Thus, the implication that John and Suzy Pot Smoker will have a significantly different psychological and physiological experience now than in 1962 seems to be a reasonable statement to me.

+1 for Church Lady referencing!

 

[dopey the clown]

This is a drug, it doesn't matter if its from a plant.

I think this is an important point. We should all make an E-pact to stop saying "it's just a plant."

Oleander is "just a plant," and if you so much as look at that mean bastard sideways you'll literally shit yourself to death-after a few days of pain. I appreciate the fact that a lot of not-so-well-researched pharma meds out there caused a sort of Eastern, holistic kick-back into the mainstream. It's probably not a bad thing overall. We suck at preventative medicine. But I think it's important to remember just how great some of the those rotten, evil pills are for a lot of people.

Cheers.

 

[chef]

Correction: pharma called & their shill is missing...

 

[Kiffen]

Rubbish.

 

[dopey the clown]

Correction: pharma called & their shill is missing...

OK, you got what you wanted-my attention. Now that you've trolled me and insulted me twice with caddy one-liners, I'll ask you candidly: do you have anything to add to the discussion? If not, please leave. You can get your final one-liner insult in, as the petty usual prefer to, without a rebuttal should you so choose. I'll ask that that pipe down after the final insult, though, as there are educated people talking about grown-up things in this thread.

Happy Holidays.

 

[chef]

Educated? lmao Superweed? Bullshit!
I was there (Oregon) smoked it every day thru the 70's/80's. Did you?

More prevalent today? Yes.
More potent? Fuck no.

Those oldskool Afghanis, skunks & thais were unbelievably strong.... FACT!

Some of these old school genetics would fetch $1000's today for a cut. IF they were available & its sure not for 3-4% THC content.

Of course, you could simply be blinded to that fact if you grew up/lived in Schwagville?
It would be my best guess...

 

[Pythagllio]

Are you implying that the researchers intentionally BS'ed the data to form an anti-cannabis consensus?

No implication, I'm stating it unequivocally. I thought I was very clear when I stated "...these people have no compunction in lying, fabricating, and manipulating statistics will you understand the controversy." in my post above.

...it is different. It's significantly "stronger" by any reasonable interpretation of what "stronger" means. It's the same species, but as you said, the weaker stuff has been (generally)removed from the food chain. Thus, the implication that John and Suzy Pot Smoker will have a significantly different psychological and physiological experience now than in 1962 seems to be a reasonable statement to me.

...and exactly why you're mistaken, and I'm treating you in a condescending manner. "John & Suzy Potsmoker" had access to exactly the same product in 1962, perhaps there has been a minor increase. People didn't smoke hemp back then. Christ, last year they dug up a Chinese mummy with a stash, and the stash tested out at 14% THC. BTW, I was around back in the '70s, had great connections, and smoked primo product which compares very nicely to today's top shelf stuff. If the choice comes down to 'do I believe that which I've experienced and seen with my own eyes, or the claims of people with a long track record of lying?" the answer is that I'm going to believe my own eyes every day of the week.

Perhaps one day you'll understand that they're lying to you. Bald faced, and unashamed.

 

[Randybobandy]

LOL I needed a good chuckle.

 

[dopey the clown]

No implication, I'm stating it unequivocally. I thought I was very clear when I stated "...these people have no compunction in lying, fabricating, and manipulating statistics will you understand the controversy." in my post above.



...and exactly why you're mistaken, and I'm treating you in a condescending manner. "John & Suzy Potsmoker" had access to exactly the same product in 1962, perhaps there has been a minor increase. People didn't smoke hemp back then. Christ, last year they dug up a Chinese mummy with a stash, and the stash tested out at 14% THC. BTW, I was around back in the '70s, had great connections, and smoked primo product which compares very nicely to today's top shelf stuff. If the choice comes down to 'do I believe that which I've experienced and seen with my own eyes, or the claims of people with a long track record of lying?" the answer is that I'm going to believe my own eyes every day of the week.

Perhaps one day you'll understand that they're lying to you. Bald faced, and unashamed.

You believe, with no direct evidence, that scientists intentionally manipulated the data. I don't know one way or another, and while I'm open to the possibility, I sincerely doubt it.

The second point, potency relative to era, is, again, something we disagree on that neither of us can really prove outright. However, you said: "People lie with statistics, and the major component of this lie is that the average has not increased because top shelf cannabis is so much better, but because low level THC cannabis has found itself removed from the distribution chain."

So which is it? Has it been removed from the food chain or hasn't it? If it has, then clearly your average smoker will have a different experience now as opposed to the 60's, as now the potent stuff is more widely available.

The only people who collect such data scientifically you believe to be lying, so I guess there is not much more we can discuss here. I appreciate the discussion.

 

[Hazelnuts]

So they're saying it changes your memory? Can they prove that those changes are bad? I won't deny that cannabis has changed me, but it's definitely to the better. They aren't really saying anything as far as I can see but maybe I didn't read close enough... Also, do they mention the dosages used anywhere in there?

 

[Hazelnuts]

You believe, with no direct evidence, that scientists intentionally manipulated the data. I don't know one way or another, and while I'm open to the possibility, I sincerely doubt it.

The second point, potency relative to era, is also something we disagree on that neither of us can really prove outright. However, you said: "People lie with statistics, and the major component of this lie is that the average has not increased because top shelf cannabis is so much better, but because low level THC cannabis has found itself removed from the distribution chain."

So which is it? Has it been removed from the food chain or hasn't it? If it has, then clearly your average smoker will have a different experience now as opposed to the 60's, as now the potent stuff is more widely available.

The only people who collect such data scientifically you believe to be lying, so I guess there is not much more we can discuss here. I appreciate the discussion.

No one manipulated anything, but the samples used to calculate the "average potency" in the 60s and 70s were definitely not representative. They used like 3 or 4 samples and they were all mexi schwag. Also, bad genetics have definitely NOT been removed from the food chain, people still grow lots of crap, and anyway, genetics are most definitely not the deciding factor when it comes to potency. Of course, if you're growing hemp, you won't get good weed but apart from that, you can grow decent stuff from most bag seed, nevermind if it's from a bag that you bought yesterday, last weekend or in 1974.

 

[Pythagllio]

So which is it? Has it been removed from the food chain or hasn't it? If it has, then clearly your average smoker will have a different experience now as opposed to the 60's, as now the potent stuff is more widely available.

It doesn't fucking matter. You're saying that the cannabis today is more potent than the cannabis of yesterday. The top shelf stuff of 1962 was very comparable to the top shelf stuff of today. It was very available. Again, you are confusing yourself with the average, when the average is fucking irrelevant. No, the experience that those people years ago had with top shelf stuff isn't different than the experience today.

You believe, with no direct evidence, that scientists intentionally manipulated the data.

I'm not sure why you think that. Direct observation and personal experience isn't direct evidence? In every court of law, such testimony is considered direct evidence, so perhaps you'd like to revisit the above absurdity I've quoted.

Considering the long, unremitting pack of lies that they've told about other aspects of cannabis use it's no stretch at all to call them liars. You can believe them if you want, and I can call you a sucker for being so foolish as to do so.

Monkey brains?
Man tits?
Genetic changes?
Gateway theory?
Immune system compromised?
Sperm made impotent?
Insanity?
Coma patients brain scans passed of as the result of cannabis?
Lung cancer?

All of the above submitted as fact, and discredited.

Thanks,but I'll believe what I've seen with my own eyes! Please feel free to believe what you are told by people with a long track record of bald faced lies.

 

[dopey the clown]

It doesn't fucking matter. You're saying that the cannabis today is more potent than the cannabis of yesterday. The top shelf stuff of 1962 was very comparable to the top shelf stuff of today. It was very available. Again, you are confusing yourself with the average, when the average is fucking irrelevant. No, the experience that those people years ago had with top shelf stuff isn't different than the experience today.

The average is not only relevant, it's the focal point of the discussion, and ultimately the point the researcher was making. You're arguing that there was similarly great pot around that you had access to back in the day. Nobody is disputing that, at least here. What the researcher is suggesting is that, on average, the drug is much more potent. Nothing more. Thus, what the average person was smoking was significantly different. I believe you echoed this sentiment earlier. I think we are just having a misunderstanding is all. Arguing two different points.

I
I'm not sure why you think that. Direct observation and personal experience isn't direct evidence? In every court of law, such testimony is considered direct evidence, so perhaps you'd like to revisit the above absurdity I've quoted.

Considering the long, unremitting pack of lies that they've told about other aspects of cannabis use it's no stretch at all to call them liars. You can believe them if you want, and I can call you a sucker for being so foolish as to do so.

Monkey brains?
Man tits?
Genetic changes?
Gateway theory?
Immune system compromised?
Sperm made impotent?
Insanity?
Coma patients brain scans passed of as the result of cannabis?
Lung cancer?

All of the above submitted as fact, and discredited.

Thanks,but I'll believe what I've seen with my own eyes! Please feel free to believe what you are told by people with a long track record of bald faced lies.

I appreciate your skepticism and your passion. I, probably like you, have had friends sit in jail ultimately stemming from "research" that was clearly manipulated. In the end though, dismissing scientific studies because some other scientists have in the past been dishonest is, in my view, a really, really bad way to observe our world. If you were to apply the same rational to other issues -well- you see where I'm going with this.

 

[texsativa]

I have seen no scientific study in this thread.

 

[Pythagllio]

Well, some citations coming at you now.

Myth: Pot is Ten Times More Potent and Dangerous Now Than in the Sixties

The notion that pot has increased dramatically in potency is a DEA myth based on biased government data, as shown in a recent NORML report by Dr. John Morgan.1 Samples of pot from the early '70s came from stale, low-potency Mexican "kilobricks" left in police lockers, whose potency had deteriorated to sub-smokable levels of less than 0.5%. These were compared to later samples of decent-quality domestic marijuana, making it appear that potency had skyrocketed. A careful examination of the government's data show that average marijuana potency increased modestly by a factor of two or so during the seventies, and has been more or less constant ever since.

In fact, there is nothing new about high-potency pot. During the sixties, it was available in premium varieties such as Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, etc. , as well as in the form of hashish and hash oil, which were every bit as strong as today's sinsemilla, but were ignored in government potency statistics. While the average potency of domestic pot did increase with the development of sinsemilla in the seventies, the range of potencies available has remained virtually unchanged since the last century, when extremely potent tonics were sold over the counter in pharmacies. In Holland, high-powered hashish and sinsemilla are currently sold in coffee shops with no evident problems.

Contrary to popular myth, greater potency is not necessarily more dangerous, due to the fact that users tend to adjust (or "self-titrate") their dose according to potency. Thus, good quality sinsemilla is actually healthier for the lungs because it reduces the amount of smoke one needs to inhale to get high.

Footnote

1. John Morgan, "American Marijuana Potency: Data Versus Conventional Wisdom," NORML Reports (1994). See also T. Mikuriya and M. Aldrich, "Cannabis 1988: Old drug, new dangers, the potency question," Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20:47-55.
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3475#11

 

[Pythagllio]

It is absurd to claim that the absence of beer makes scotch more potent or dangerous. In the 1930s, the 'average' potency of a drink very likely increased for this very reason due to prohibition.

 

[Pythagllio]

The University of Mississippi Cannabis Potency Monitoring project does not use a weighted average. A hitchhiker with an ounce of 20% kind bud in his pocket accepts a ride from a trucker who has a ton of 3% Mexican bunk weed in his trailer. A mile down the road both are arrested, and an sample of each is sent to the U of M. The potency is measured, and the entire ton magically has an average potency of 11.5%.

 

[Randybobandy]

They used to tell us that if our kids smoked it that they would get raped by people of darker skin. Have you guys herd of rape induced by weed? We have a 6500 year track record of safe use. I don't think any studies will bring anything new under the sun. The shit works, doesn't hurt anyone, and it feels great. Its the fealing part people don't like.

Think about it. If weed didn't make you feal good but it still had so many benifits it would be legal. Asprin kills over 2000 people a year. If it had any uephoric qualities some politition would demoniz it. Its just like sex. Its a pole going into a hole. If it didn't feal so good no one would care about it so much.(prostitution) Its the fact that emotion get involved. I really think people who are against weed display a form of subconcious jelousy. It dosn't hurt them or anyone else and it makes me feal good an enriches my life. Why would they care if I did it. Pole in a hole.

 

[cateros]

I love the comment that smoking bong we take more cannabis I cant speak for everyone but as for myself when I smoke a bong I use probably 75% less then I would if I was to smoke a joint 1 joint=1/2 g 1 bong equals .05 -.1g and time between use probably half an hour the joint however maybe time between use would be 45 minutes so how is it possible i can be using more when I smoke a bong?

More potent hrmm back in the 80's I was introduced to a strain called cali rainbow stuff was fucking potent as I walked across the parking lot of canadas wonderland the front entrance appeard to be getting further away with every step I made towards it and the small shock of my footsteps as I walked made me feel as if though my eyeballs were bouncing up and down to this day I have never smoked cannabis anywhere near as potent it is possible the person who smoked it with me had laced his joints with something but it sure didnt taste like anything but cannabis and the effects were the same but about 15x more potent then anything I have smoked since if I was to guess today what its percentage of thc was I would have to say at least 35% as other then that the strongest strain I have since was only 15% and was nothing like this cali rainbow.

Actually that is a question has anyone who was an active smoker or grower in the 80's ever heard of this strain before I have never thought to ask since.