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

[Tuggo]

To be clear: nobody is dismissing scientist and their studies because other scientist in the past lied or made mistakes.

Smokers dismissed scientist in the past cause they were either lying or wrong then and their at least just wrong now.

70k pieces of evidence to his one? You dont have stop at one its now two and if you keep askin that number will increase.

You self-admittedly(sp) dont know shit. These gospel speaking scientist obviously(to us at least) dont know shit. So you were probably called an idiot for dismissing the advice of people that have actually smoked this shit since the 60's and 70's.

To me its simple, if weed is so more potent today why would I and people like me give a limb to get their hand on the hazes, skunks, and thais of old?

Once you've smoked for a while you, I'm sure, will come to the same conclusion. All these super potent strains are mostly hype. Nothing beats well grown quality genetics today, yesterday, or tomorrow. We know this and its going to take more than a scientist with a piece of paper to convince otherwise. Especially considering the gov's track record on scientific studies.

Not trying to be a dick dude, if you don't know and are looking to learn IC's the place to be. Screw a scientist and his studies, roll sumthin and find out for yourself.

 

[FRIENDinDEED]

To be clear: nobody is dismissing scientist and their studies because other scientist in the past lied or made mistakes.

Smokers dismissed scientist in the past cause they were either lying or wrong then and their at least just wrong now.

70k pieces of evidence to his one? You dont have stop at one its now two and if you keep askin that number will increase.

You self-admittedly(sp) dont know shit. These gospel speaking scientist obviously(to us at least) dont know shit. So you were probably called an idiot for dismissing the advice of people that have actually smoked this shit since the 60's and 70's.

To me its simple, if weed is so more potent today why would I and people like me give a limb to get their hand on the hazes, skunks, and thais of old?

Once you've smoked for a while you, I'm sure, will come to the same conclusion. All these super potent strains are mostly hype. Nothing beats well grown quality genetics today, yesterday, or tomorrow. We know this and its going to take more than a scientist with a piece of paper to convince otherwise. Especially considering the gov's track record on scientific studies.

Not trying to be a dick dude, if you don't know and are looking to learn IC's the place to be. Screw a scientist and his studies, roll sumthin and find out for yourself.

HERE HERE SIR (((THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE))) well said, well said indeed!!

i dont wanna hear shit from a scientist, if he/she doesnt smoke cannabis themselves plain and simple!!!

 

[dopey the clown]

To be clear: nobody is dismissing scientist and their studies because other scientist in the past lied or made mistakes.

Smokers dismissed scientist in the past cause they were either lying or wrong then and their at least just wrong now.

You say people aren't dismissing the studies scientists "...made mistakes" in, but instead dismissing them because "....their at least just wrong now."

With no evidence, still, besides personal testimonials to the contrary? Then that's exactly what you're doing, man.

70k pieces of evidence to his one? You dont have stop at one its now two and if you keep askin that number will increase.

You self-admittedly(sp) dont know shit. These gospel speaking scientist obviously(to us at least) dont know shit. So you were probably called an idiot for dismissing the advice of people that have actually smoked this shit since the 60's and 70's.

To me its simple, if weed is so more potent today why would I and people like me give a limb to get their hand on the hazes, skunks, and thais of old?

Once you've smoked for a while you, I'm sure, will come to the same conclusion. All these super potent strains are mostly hype. Nothing beats well grown quality genetics today, yesterday, or tomorrow. We know this and its going to take more than a scientist with a piece of paper to convince otherwise. Especially considering the gov's track record on scientific studies.

Not trying to be a dick dude, if you don't know and are looking to learn IC's the place to be. Screw a scientist and his studies, roll sumthin and find out for yourself.

I hear you dude. I wasn't around then. I don't think you and the other dudes are liars, or delusional. What I do think is that this study was probably done correctly(think of the logistics of implying a lie of this scope-and for what? To imply that the median of THC is higher? Who gives a shit?)and serves as a reasonably effective guide as to the THC differential. As mentioned above, there are numerous factors beyond THC that go into quality smoke, as we all know. I suspect one of two things, or both, are at play here in our discussion:

1)you boys simply had the bad-ass connections.
2)you smoked awesome shit, awesome shit was everywhere, but the THC content wasn't very high. As we all know(not that we can explain it on a micro-level, which is what I was implying when I said I "didn't know enough of cannabis" that everyone seems to be harping on)THC isn't everything.

 

[Pythagllio]

Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical_fallacy

..

 

[Tuggo]

Yes, THC isnt everything. It definately isnt as important as they make it seem. As a smoker this is the part that I know. So if I know that, those studies dont mean as much.

I'd much rather have a lower potent 3.5 hr enjoyable high than to be blasted for 30 minutes with a hour headache but thats just me.

In comparison to weed today, IMO the weed of yesteryear was definately more complex at least. And thats just it, mj comes in so many varieties it all comes down to preference, this will never change. And if uber potent by itself isnt my preference(as with most people that have smoked for any length of time) why do I care about a study about potency?

 

[Tuggo]

fifty post yay!!!

 

[Hazelnuts]

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.
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."

But you can't test weed from the 70s today, and you can't change how tests were done in the 70s. Don't you get it? I acknowledge that today, their potency tests are all fine and dandy, but their samples from the 70s were either:
a) tested in the 70s with outdated test methods different from the ones used today plus they were unrepresentative mexi brick schwag they got from big busts, or
b) left to sit in a stinky locker room for 30 years and then tested using today's methodology. Now I think you and I both agree that weed that's been sitting in an evidence locker that is neither properly ventilated nor has the right humidity to preserve the potency of the ganja that's stored in there is probably not gonna be as good as when it was first put in there. Maybe the scientists didn't intentionally cook the stats, but the fact is that they're cooked, if not on purpose then by human error. I'm not dismissing this "evidence" because the scientists who conducted it have put out outrageous lies and skewed statistics in the past, I'm dismissing it because the studies behind it weren't conducted according to proper scientific guidelines, which, in this case, has a great effect on the study's outcome.

Also, if you look at the study in the link you posted you'll see exactly what I mean: In the 70s, they only tested a couple samples per year (hardly ever more than 20) and figures of the single categories since the 80s haven't risen drastically, they've been fluctuating around 4-7% with a couple peaks at 10-12% in the late 80s/early 90s and the late 90s. According to their figures, THC content has gone down in the last couple of years (2009 isn't statistically relevant since they used only 1 sample). The only figure that's been more or less steadily rising is the total average and that change can be attributed to many factors especially a shift in priorities of the authorities towards sending more higher-potency samples to the lab to get tested. Thus, this figure isn't representative and if you look at the single categories (sinsemilla, marijuana(whatever the difference might be there), ditchweed etc) you'll see that everything's stayed pretty much the same.

 

[ButteredIt]

I've been ingesting cannabis for 32 1/2 years now.

tolerance?

 

[dopey the clown]

..

Egg yolks have been studied for decades for their health benefits. In the past egg yolks have been vilified by the Health Dept. for their cholesterol content. It has most recently determined that food cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol for most people. The Health Department has been susceptible to political influence in the past. I also found out that a leading official with the health department grew up on a farm that raised eggs, and enjoys them very much for breakfast to this day.


The Man is at it again. My grandmother started eating 3 eggs a day a few months ago and she recently died. Eggs are shit. I mean, look at my grandma! Studies? Fuck studies. It's all propaganda maaaaaaaaaan.

Yes, THC isnt everything. It definately isnt as important as they make it seem. As a smoker this is the part that I know. So if I know that, those studies dont mean as much.

I'd much rather have a lower potent 3.5 hr enjoyable high than to be blasted for 30 minutes with a hour headache but thats just me.

In comparison to weed today, IMO the weed of yesteryear was definately more complex at least. And thats just it, mj comes in so many varieties it all comes down to preference, this will never change. And if uber potent isnt my preference(as with most people that have smoked for any length of time) why do I care about a study about potency?

Exactly. I agree 100 percent with everything you just said. I'll be more interested in the study that can determine what all the various cannabinoids and other, perhaps unstudied, compounds found in cannabis flowers do for our purposes.

 

[Hazelnuts]

Egg yolks have been studied for decades for their health benefits. In the past egg yolks have been vilified by the Health Dept. for their cholesterol content. It has most recently determined that food cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol for most people. The Health Department has been susceptible to political influence in the past. I also found out that a leading official with the health department grew up on a farm that raised eggs, and enjoys them very much for breakfast to this day.


The Man is at it again. My grandmother started eating 3 eggs a day a few months ago and she recently died. Eggs are shit. I mean, look at my grandma! Studies? Fuck studies. It's all propaganda maaaaaaaaaan.

That argument is pretty flawed and I suspect you know that.
Your grandma could have died from anything and most possible causes for her death were completely unrelated to eggs. However, people in the 70s didn't just randomly get high, they smoked 70s weed and felt an effect from it (which can't be attributed to anything else besides smoking said 70s weed, as opposed to your granny's death) which was just as strong or even stronger as the effect they get from today's weed. Thus, their subjective experiences lead them to the conclusion that those studies are bullshit.

 

[Dislexus]

Anybody who believes a single sentence of a DEA funded study should do some research into Dr. Ricaurte and the con-job he pulled off switching MDMA with meth to create a bunch of media noise before the RAVE Act came up for vote.

 

[Cat Jockey]

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.

A little common sense analysis. Kudos. Being born in 1972, I have no idea what the weed of the 70's or 80's was like. I don't subscribe to the notion it is somehow that much stronger today. I will disagree a bit on the availability though. The street value of MJ in Colorado pretty much has been the same for over a decade. The reason for that is because supply has increased. It is more available. There are more people growing today.

I would also suggest that sites like this, OG, the old Hemp Cultivation and CW had a major role to play in the increasing number of growers.

 

[Shalom Rocket]

this is the funniest joke i ever seen about how it leads to other drugs

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/public...=1&source=ga&gclid=CPq3xZemxZ4CFU0A4wodcg1BpA

Here is a interesting link i agree with in regards to legalization and all this propaganda., i wish i heard facts to convince me there is anything wrong with weed., but till this day i hear nothing but conjecture.

Coffee, alcohol, coding are far worse on the cr@p list of death tolls, yet the government in the US and UK agreed on a name like British American Tobacco on day when it was time to shut down what they realized after waiting 10 years for Lab facts was poison in Cigarettes that gets people addicted to them by damaging there brains, genes and more.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081123172534AAra1hi

 

[Hazelnuts]

this is the funniest joke i ever seen about how it leads to other drugs

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/public...=1&source=ga&gclid=CPq3xZemxZ4CFU0A4wodcg1BpA

Here is a interesting link i agree with in regards to legalization and all this propaganda., i wish i heard facts to convince me there is anything wrong with weed., but till this day i hear nothing but conjecture.

Coffee, alcohol, coding are far worse on the cr@p list of death tolls, yet the government in the US and UK agreed on a name like British American Tobacco on day when it was time to shut down what they realized after waiting 10 years for Lab facts was poison in Cigarettes that gets people addicted to them by damaging there brains, genes and more.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081123172534AAra1hi

Don't ever take anything posted on drugfreeworld seriously, they're sponsored by scientology (if you look close enough, there's a book by L. Ron Hubbard in their Recommended Books section). That ought to say enough.

 

[Grass Lands]

I've been toking the good herb for over 28 years and to date I still have not had any better then the days of old..Still recall what we called the "one hitter quiter" one toke and it was melt to the sofa. No brand names just good ole "Killer Green Bud" but you had to be in the know to be getting the good stuff from norcal, if not then it was the usual mexi bud for most..the wife will tell ya the best she smoked to date is the Columbian Gold she used to snag out of her dads sock drawer...mind blowing herb as she would say.

In fact I have a female of some of my old stock from the 80's going right now..she is just about ready for picking so it will be a rockin' christmas.. and a tokin' new years!

Peace Folks and Happy Holidays!!!

GL

 

[fatigues]

I must dissent.

Unlike most of the posters here, I do think that marijuana has objectively increased in its overall strength at the top end. More importantly, stronger weed is FAR more available now than it ever was in the 60s and 70s.

There are a few reasons for this, but they should be familiar with everyone here.

1 - Genetic Breeding: Marijuana land races in the wild have existed for millennia. Some individual plants were always better than others. There was Maui Wowie, Thai, Columbian and Acapulco Gold and Panama Red long ago too.

This was very good pot. I think compared to today’s' pot, the classic "very good" pot would have been in the mid-teens to high teens in terms of THC. But it simply didn't get into the low-to-mid 20s. Uber_Weed, (which is still relatively rare now), was unheard of then.

Our breeding programs across the world over the past 30 years (and especially over the last 20) have had a real impact on the increasing yield, decreasing flowering times - and yes - increasing potency.



2- Sensimilla and Indoor Growing: As our breeds have changed, our grow styles have improved and become more technically informed, too. Indoor growing allows for vastly more sensi bud now and allows us to maximize the strength of the genetics that we have. It's stronger weed. We all know this.

Can you grow seedless bud outdoors too? Yes, but it's far more difficult. We all know this too. And when it's being grown in commercial quantities, the pollen finds a way...

Still, I honestly don't remember the last time I found a seed in my weed. It's been well over a decade and closer to two. Outdoor schwag may be commonplace in Cali and the southern parts of the USA, but not where I am.

I sometimes almost envy those bagseed growers, really. I just don't get the chance to do that anymore - even if I wanted to.

Does that have an impact on the prevalence of stronger weed? Yes it does, though it does not magically make the strain stronger.

Combine the better genetics with the stronger grow styles, however, and it pushes the envelope further.

3- Indoor Hydro: Which leads us to better indoor grown weed with better trich development. "Hydro" was for a solid stretch of time synonymous for "excellent" and strong weed. Compared to outdoor grown stuff, we all knew the indoor "hydro" was better - and stronger. To this day, in markets where a choice is offered the indoor grown "hydro" weed still sells for more. Whether the weed is actually hydroponically grown or not, "hydro" in terms of the "quality" of weed bought and sold is slang which really means "very strong shit grown under HID", as opposed to actually grown hydroponically.

Put it all together? Yes, weed has got stronger on the very top end. Most importantly, in the middle to higher end, where before weed of that srength was was relatively rare, it is now commonplace, year round. I completely agree that there is a LOT more "very good" weed now than there was 30 years ago.

So does it make a difference? Well, yes and no. Comparing apples to oranges, there simply is a lot more good weed now then there ever was back then. Most people never encountered it and remember the few times they did very well

But no, I don't believe there was low 20s THC% weed 30 or 40 years ago and I think we are distorting the truth here somewhat to claim there was. I know there are many here who disagree. I am simply stating my opinion.

Lastly - HASH IS NOT NEW. There was ALWAYS hash. And while, yes, some hash was better than others (then as now) good black hash 30 years ago was still stronger than any of the strongest bud you could ever buy or grow now - and not by just a little, either.

Yes It is - and What of It?

Which brings me to the more important point: so what? The Prohibitionists use the "Not your Father's Marijuana" argument (in the UK, this is the politically improved "Skunk argument") in an attempt to persuade those whose only experience was with marijuana 30 and 40 years ago that today's weed is something that they cannot relate their own personal experiences too. That's bullshit. It's propaganda, is what it is.

In the UK, this Prohibitionist argument has been taken to a higher level by attaching the "Skunk" label to MJ in an attempt to give it a new name. By giving it a new name, once again, the aim and object is to persuade those who have personal experience with MJ that somehow the drug has now changed and they cannot rely upon their own past experiences as a reliable guide to judge "this dangerous and super-potent genetically modified weed".

Bollocks to that.

A Drink is NOT a Drink is NOT a Drink, either.

It all comes down to this. On the alcohol scale we have:

American Beer 3-4%
Canadian Beer 4-6%
Malt Liquor - 6-9%
Wine 9-13%
Sherry/Port 18%-22%
Liqueurs 20-40% (mostly 20ish%)
Liquor (std 40%)
Liquor (151 over proof)
Liquor 200 proof

Depending on where you live, you may not even have access to all of those strengths of various beers, wines and boozes (over proof is not sold everywhere).

But that's hardly the point. Point is, we all know differing alcohols are stonger and so we moderate how much and how fast we drink each of them.

The point is a lot easier to deal with on this simple basis:

Q: When is the last time you went in to a bar and ordered a tall cold pint of Bacardi rum?

A: How about "never"?

People are well able to manage their intake of alcohol in widely varying strengths by changing how much they drink of a particular strength of alcohol - and how strong they mix them.

Now, this can admittedly sneak up and bite you on the ass when you aren't looking. Ever been drinking mixed drinks and had someone start mixing up 151 alcohol in there without you knowing? With a sneak attack of 151 in a mixed drink on your third of the night, it doesn't take long before you are passed out on the couch or puking in the bathroom (whatever).

MJ generally does not have that same sort of hidden "gotcha" as its effects hit pretty fast, and most people tend to come at it from a standing start. (If you are drinking first before you start smoking , well – yeah- you can get weed-whacked too.)

But the vast majority of the time, you can modify your intake as you consume it. You can get a sense of the unknown strength of the weed as you inhale it. It's called titration. It does not work on ingested THC, but for smoked weed - it works just fine.

So you just aren't going to smoke as much of some 24% LSD as you are of some relatively benign mids, let alone outdoor schwag.

But, to be fair, a few times, I've had some incredibly powerful creepy weed that I've consumed in a mostly unsuspecting way - only to be introduced to an unexpected mind-numbing bit of DEVASTATING BLASTEDNESS 10 minutes later. Had I known the strength of the weed I was smoking, I would probably have moderated my intake somewhat initially. Still - these incidents are standout exceptions I can count on the fingers of one hand or less (about as many times as I can count being "sniped" with 151).

For the most part, moderating intake is easy. It's easy with alcohol, and while it's a little more difficult with unknown strength weed... Well, it's not so difficult that it's not still the rule, and not the exception to the rule.

So yes, I believe today’s strongest weed is a little stronger, our mid-range weed is a LOT stronger (in comparison as to what mid-range was 30 or 40 years ago) and there is a lot more of both, all the time.

None of this is cause for alarm and is, to the contrary, something to congratulate ourselves about, in the main. For the most part, we smoke less of it at one sitting as a consequence.

Big deal.

 

[kmk420kali]

But, to be fair, a few times, I've had some incredibly powerful creepy weed that I've consumed in a mostly unsuspecting way - only to be introduced to am unexpected mind-numbing bit of DEVASTATING BLASTEDNESS 10 minutes later. Had I known the strength of the weed I was smoking, I would probably have moderated my intake somewhat initially. Still - these incidents are standout exceptions I can count on the fingers of one hand or less (about as many times as I can count being "sniped" with 151).

This happened to me recently with some Chocolate Thai-- It looked brown...like mids....but HOLY SHIT!!! It was some of the strongest (stupid weed...meaning weed that makes me STUPID!!lol) that I have had in a long time!!

 

[Shalom Rocket]

The only evidence which distinguishes the cannabis of the 70s with the cannabis today has nothing to do with THC levels but that a more vast variety of hybrid and medical strains are available, AND THAT IS A VERY GOOD THING.

The evidence shows that the oldest SATIVA strains from Afghanistan, India, South America (which entered the US) and AFRICAN BLOOD from Africa are the strongest in the world but they can only be grown in those regions out doors correctly to get the highest level of THC., in most cases when asking anyone about these hypothetical lies about THC i also found that the people had n idea what the diference was between a Indica or Sativa plant, they always assumed the plants where Indica, gave you the munchies and made you too lazy to drive so you can die while doing it (drunk)., they avoid the comparisons with Alcohol and other over the shelf dangerous drugs like coffee.

This is all i find all over the net and from asking people who have allot of experience in the Netherlands with Eastern strains., but prove me wrong please, the 70s did not even cross my mind when i posted this topic, it was the Cannabis from the time of Moses that i was under the impression been compared here with today's Cannabis.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

why is everyone fueling this troll going around here posting links to government websites repeatedly. Spouting utter bullshit and backtracking when someone calls him on it. Arguing with more knowledgeable people, using government controlled information as your source, isn't gonna get you anywhere if thats what you're looking to gain an accurate interpretation of the issues you bring up. But I don't think you are. You're some sort of robot sent to blow up this spot. get out troll. I'm sure you've been banned from here on other names.

 

[Pythagllio]

Anybody who believes a single sentence of a DEA funded study should do some research into Dr. Ricaurte and the con-job he pulled off switching MDMA with meth to create a bunch of media noise before the RAVE Act came up for vote.

The ONDCP is required by law to lie about schedule 1 drugs:

http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/

The entire gov't anti-drug apparatus is agenda, not fact driven. The long list of bald faced lies that have come down the pike are demonstrable.

It's really amusing that dopey the clown spends so much time trying to convince me that I haven't seen with my own eyes that which I have seen. Oh, but the authorities say blah, blah, blah, and they would never lie, or prevaricate, or cherry pick data to 'prove' their agenda. dopey assigns some kind of credibility to UMiss research because it's 'scientific' and comes from a University. But the fact remains that the UMiss project is gov't funded which means if they don't please their masters the money goes away. The fact remains that UMiss is the only facility allowed to do this research. Any other scientist that wants to do scientific research regarding cannabis has to demonstrate that their research will find negative things about cannabis before they receive permission and funding. But we're supposed to accept on faith that UMiss is pure as the driven snow, when any reasonable observation is clear that they're the US Government's butt bitch.

Anyway, if people want to believe bullshit that's their prerogative. But you're not going to bullshit me. The truth will come out in due time, it always does. dopey the clown is a damn fool for putting such faith in proven liars. Especially when their 'scientific' research seems to always be so damn convenient to their agenda.

The Joker: And now, folks, it's time for "Who do you trust!" Hubba, hubba, hubba! Money, money, money! Who do you trust? Me? I'm giving away free money. And where is the Batman? HE'S AT HOME WASHING HIS TIGHTS!