Is todays Cannabis THC levels nothing like that of used regulary ages ago?

[Shalom Rocket]

Hi everyone, i hope i am not asking something already answered many times around here, i did not see this question so here i go.

I am asking if today's cannabis (THC level) been in the 20s is higher then ever in the past, law enforcement agencies say that this is one of the reasons they argue with everyone who consumes, and why they go on concluding that since a person tolerates this high level of THC it will introduce them to other types of drugs.

I personally do not believe Cannabis is a drug, i never did, its a medicine for me, not to mention it SAVED so many other people's lives not only as a medicine, but some populations from starving as i read on the net now., as a food.

Any facts on this THC comparison?

 

[Pythagllio]

Why don't we ask the Afghani and Pakistani families that have been producing killer indicas to produce hashish for hundreds and hundreds of generations if a bunch of hippies came along and put them to shame in less than 2 decades? The arrogance of humans seems to include that all people from the past were stupid, but that we're so damn smart.

I've been ingesting cannabis for 32 1/2 years now. It's bullshit that today's cannabis is better than 20, 30, 40 years ago based on my experience and observation.

That Chinese mummy they dug up last year had cannabis in his tomb which still tested out with a high THC %.

No, this is propaganda designed to convince my peers from decades ago that quit consuming cannabis that their personal experience isn't applicable to today. Those of us that never quit sure recall bags of Panama Red, Oaxacan, Columbian Gold, Thai Sticks, and the ever present selections of primo hashish and laugh at this bullshit.

 

[dopey the clown]

http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content.htm

Source: University of Mississippi, Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project


Noteworthy summary that I tried to echo in a previous thread with people having none of it: "Everyone who was smoking cannabis back in the 1970's, and still does so today, will tell you flat out that the marijuana today is really no stronger than that from the past. That is because truly excellent cannabis products were indeed available back then. The big difference today is simply that there is wider availability of higher quality product."

 

[Shalom Rocket]

Why don't we ask the Afghani and Pakistani families that have been producing killer indicas to produce hashish for hundreds and hundreds of generations if a bunch of hippies came along and put them to shame in less than 2 decades? The arrogance of humans seems to include that all people from the past were stupid, but that we're so damn smart.

I've been ingesting cannabis for 32 1/2 years now. It's bullshit that today's cannabis is better than 20, 30, 40 years ago based on my experience and observation.

That Chinese mummy they dug up last year had cannabis in his tomb which still tested out with a high THC %.

No, this is propaganda designed to convince my peers from decades ago that quit consuming cannabis that their personal experience isn't applicable to today. Those of us that never quit sure recall bags of Panama Red, Oaxacan, Columbian Gold, Thai Sticks, and the ever present selections of primo hashish and laugh at this bullshit.

agree with you man, so i wanted to educate myself

thanks

 

[Laugan Gaucher]

It's much easy to find good seeds today for growing over the world indoor and outdoor. Panama, colombian, thai ...are outdoor tropical sativa only.

 

[Pythagllio]

...That is because truly excellent cannabis products were indeed available back then. The big difference today is simply that there is wider availability of higher quality product."

...and like we tried to tell you on the other thread, irrelevant. Top shelf is only slightly more available nowadays, and is more applicable to a steady summer supply. Back in the day nobody had nothin' in July and August.

You really have fallen for the propaganda, and are even trying to modify it so it seems more reasonable. The propagandists aren't arguing 'more widely available', they're arguing that somehow today's top shelf is much better than that of a few decades ago. Again, let's ask a 2800 year old Chinese mummy.

We weren't smoking dirt weed and getting placebo highs back then. Honest Injun.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Hi everyone, i hope i am not asking something already answered many times around here, i did not see this question so here i go.

I am asking if today's cannabis (THC level) been in the 20s is higher then ever in the past, law enforcement agencies say that this is one of the reasons they argue with everyone who consumes, and why they go on concluding that since a person tolerates this high level of THC it will introduce them to other types of drugs.

I personally do not believe Cannabis is a drug, i never did, its a medicine for me, not to mention it SAVED so many other people's lives not only as a medicine, but some populations from starving as i read on the net now., as a food.

Any facts on this THC comparison?

Actually what they are not telling you in these studies is that the cannabis they were using 20-30 years ago to conduct these chromatography tests was measured at a thc to weight ratio. So for every 5 grams of cannabis, they were finding something like 2+ grams of seeds and stems, lowering the over all thc content of the 5grams.

Now that many growers are well versed in the art of sensimilla, we are not finding much cannabis with seeds. Since they are testing the same amount of sensimilla versus yesteryears non sensimilla crops, that 5 gram test is much closer to 5 grams, thus justifying the higher levels of the THC. So it is not the cannabis that is actually higher in THC content, it is that their is less unsmokable byproducts in the chromatography tests....

Forget anything the government says negative about cannabis. Their tales are more desperate and far fatched then a 14 year olds dream of banging a super model. Anyone remember the reese monkey gas mask tests? That should prove they will take any measure to try and come to a negative claim for cannabis use....

 

[dopey the clown]

...and like we tried to tell you on the other thread, irrelevant. Top shelf is only slightly more available nowadays, and is more applicable to a steady summer supply. Back in the day nobody had nothin' in July and August.

OK, so this is the Pythagllio Standard for Academic and Intellectual Pursuits as I understand it:

University data is wrong, usually intentionally. It's all propaganda. The sample-size of over 67,000 seizures is rendered irrelevant. They have manipulated the data, which was all based on accountable lab-tested THC content via "captured" cannabis. Much more important than university-controlled data is the fact that Pythagllio and Friends could score good grass in the 70's.

The propagandists aren't arguing 'more widely available', they're arguing that somehow today's top shelf is much better than that of a few decades ago. .

I believe you are misinterpreting this. On average, the stuff kids are smoking now is significantly more potent than back in the day based on the data. Therefore, it is correct to say that the pot kids are smoking today is (generally)much different than what kids where smoking in the 70's-as verifiable by the data.

For example, the following fluff-piece I picked out in mainstream media: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/marijuana.potency/index.html

Short this poorly-worded paragraph that I can't decipher: "The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say. "(WTF does that mean?) it seems pretty reasonable, to me, and consistent with the argument that averages are higher. That is, from what I've read, generally all they are trying to say. And they are correct in saying so, if you don't discount University of Mississippi Research as government propaganda.

 

[dopey the clown]

Actually what they are not telling you in these studies is that the cannabis they were using 20-30 years ago to conduct these chromatography tests was measured at a thc to weight ratio. So for every 5 grams of cannabis, they were finding something like 2+ grams of seeds and stems, lowering the over all thc content of the 5grams.

Now that many growers are well versed in the art of sensimilla, we are not finding much cannabis with seeds. Since they are testing the same amount of sensimilla versus yesteryears non sensimilla crops, that 5 gram test is much closer to 5 grams, thus justifying the higher levels of the THC. So it is not the cannabis that is actually higher in THC content, it is that their is less unsmokable byproducts in the chromatography tests....

source?

 

[whiterasta]

The cannabis from the sixties and seventies usually came as tropical sativas. The THC level may have been lower but the overall cannabinoid profile was much 'fuller" and the effects very somatic with little to no "THC Anxiety" for the regular smoker. Modern strains have focused breeding on THC levels and have narrowed the effects by narrowing the cannabinoid profile.What may be seen as stronger is IMO simply the skewing of the cannabinoids toward THC making it the primary action rather than the symphony of effects from less bred down "wild" strains
WR

 

[dopey the clown]

The cannabis from the sixties and seventies usually came as tropical sativas. The THC level may have been lower but the overall cannabinoid profile was much 'fuller" and the effects very somatic with little to no "THC Anxiety" for the regular smoker. Modern strains have focused breeding on THC levels and have narrowed the effects by narrowing the cannabinoid profile.What may be seen as stronger is IMO simply the skewing of the cannabinoids toward THC making it the primary action rather than the symphony of effects from less bred down "wild" strains
WR

This is a great post. I don't know enough about cannabis, to be honest, to comment. But to me this seems pretty reasonable, and might explain the clear contrast I have experienced between the data and what internet users like the above have reported.

Do you (or others educated to this degree) have an opinion on whether or not this narrow concentration on THC levels via breeding has an effect on the experience, positive or negative?

Appreciate you stopping by.

 

[Hazelnuts]

OK, so this is the Pythagllio Standard for Academic and Intellectual Pursuits as I understand it:

University data is wrong, usually intentionally. It's all propaganda. The sample-size ofover 67,000 seizures is rendered irrelevant. They have manipulated the data, which was all based on accountable lab-tested THC content via "captured" cannabis. Much more important than university-controlled data is the fact that Pythagllio and Friends could score good grass in the 70's.



I believe you are misinterpreting this. On average, the stuff kids are smoking now is significantly more potent than back in the day based on the data. Therefore, it is correct to say that the pot kids are smoking today is (generally)much different than what kids where smoking in the 70's-as verifiable by the data.

For example, the following fluff-piece I picked out in mainstream media: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/14/marijuana.potency/index.html

Short this poorly-worded paragraph that I can't decipher: "The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say. "(WTF does that mean?) it seems pretty reasonable, to me, and consistent with the argument that averages are higher. That is, from what I've read, generally all they are trying to say. And they are correct in saying so, if you don't discount University of Mississippi Research as government propaganda.

The problem with this is that the UoM research IS government propaganda, they used totally non-representative samples to calculate the THC average in their tests they quote to "prove" that weed today is stronger than in the 70s. There was great stuff back then (haze, thai stick etc) and there's great stuff today, it just may be a bit more available but as it's been said that's not their argument. While in recent years, there may have been over 67000 seized samples that have been tested, that was definitely not the case in the 70s. They used a very small number of samples and they were almost all bunk weed, and I think there's also differences in testing methods (THC to total weight vs. THC percentage of essential oils) that produce those values. Ask anyone who was around in the 70s and they'll tell you that the good weed back then was just as good as the good weed today. The average THC value hasn't even doubled compared to the 70s although it may be a little higher due to people becoming more aware of the fact that sinsemilla is more profitable to grow.

 

[Pythagllio]

Yes, what I've seen and observed with my own eyes is my standard for truth, especially when the 'research' is presented by people with a long history of bald faced lying. Perhaps I should start to worry about growing man tits, lolol.

You're an idiot if you believe that today's pot is anything marginally better than that which we had in the '70s.

 

[SuperConductor]

You're an idiot

I agree, can't believe he did all that arguing then says "I don't know enough about cannabis, to be honest, to comment.". Then why on earth have you been commenting on something you don't know enough about to comment on? Smells fishy to me.

 

[slappyjack]

There's only one truth that need be known. Humans have bred crops for maximum potency, flavor, raw materials and nutrition for thousands of years.

I would be shocked if ANY crop isn't a bit better than it was 3000 years ago. Progress is a good thing.

 

[bostondutchmast]

only thing that has changed is the varieties and the skunk lol...give me back the rks !!

 

[Mr.Hades]

You know... Everyone compares what todays cannabis is like, to what it was like in the 60's and 70's.

That is one thing I dont understand...

Lets take a few steps back...

I wanna know what the ancient romans were smoking...

Infact, I wanna know what kinda strains King Tut was messin with...

 

[Sativa_Grows]

Yes, what I've seen and observed with my own eyes is my standard for truth, especially when the 'research' is presented by people with a long history of bald faced lying. Perhaps I should start to worry about growing man tits, lolol.

You're an idiot if you believe that today's pot is anything marginally better than that which we had in the '70s.

I believe you are misinterpreting this. On average, the stuff kids are smoking now is significantly more potent than back in the day based on the data. Therefore, it is correct to say that the pot kids are smoking today is (generally)much different than what kids where smoking in the 70's-as verifiable by the data.

I'm shocked that you're buying into this propaganda.

I agree 100% with Pythagllio, good weed is only slightly more available. People in the 70's who had access to low grade had to smoke more of it to get the same effect (same thing applies to today) leading to more tar in the lungs...thus smaller amounts of more potent pot is safer, no?

 

[dopey the clown]

The problem with this is that the UoM research IS government propaganda, they used totally non-representative samples to calculate the THC average in their tests they quote to "prove" that weed today is stronger than in the 70s. There was great stuff back then (haze, thai stick etc) and there's great stuff today, it just may be a bit more available but as it's been said that's not their argument. While in recent years, there may have been over 67000 seized samples that have been tested, that was definitely not the case in the 70s. They used a very small number of samples and they were almost all bunk weed, and I think there's also differences in testing methods (THC to total weight vs. THC percentage of essential oils) that produce those values. Ask anyone who was around in the 70s and they'll tell you that the good weed back then was just as good as the good weed today. The average THC value hasn't even doubled compared to the 70s although it may be a little higher due to people becoming more aware of the fact that sinsemilla is more profitable to grow.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/mpmp_report_104.pdf.

That's a link to where it is now. It's all done using standard methodology.

Yes, what I've seen and observed with my own eyes is my standard for truth, especially when the 'research' is presented by people with a long history of bald faced lying. Perhaps I should start to worry about growing man tits, lolol.

You're an idiot if you believe that today's pot is anything marginally better than that which we had in the '70s.

to be clear: You are dismissing science-based analysis because other scientists have in the past made mistakes or lied. You instead rely on your own personal test-study(1 person), which, as oppose to 70K pieces of "evidence"(tested objectively, scientifically, in a university lab)was tested based on what you think was "good shit."

Think objectively about the rationale you're using and apply it to any other science-based conclusions.

I'll choose science. If that makes me an idiotic supporter of The Man's propaganda machine, sign me up for Team Idiot all day.

I agree, can't believe he did all that arguing then says "I don't know enough about cannabis, to be honest, to comment.". Then why on earth have you been commenting on something you don't know enough about to comment on? Smells fishy to me.

I was honest in my lack of knowledge in the detailed, micro-genetic structure of cannabis. Are you a scientist yourself, sir? Can you decipher the chemical compounds intelligently? Neither can I, which is what I meant when I showed some humility and implied as much.

First post in the thread and you're calling people an idiot and getting personal, while basing your assumptions on personal experience over science. It's one thing to be defensive, but this smells like psychological addiction and self-justification.

 

[oldbob]

I don't know why but the smoke that is around today is different than, the gold pot of the early 70's. Colombian gold (my favorite) was stonier than the modern strains of good smoke available today, hard to explain. The old stoner's know what I mean. Sadly those days of gold pot are done. It had a taste and high all its own. You had to have been there to understand. oldbob