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

[Shalom Rocket]

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.

A mr.ticklish i think you have a valid point on one hand, but on the other i started the thread asking where the information about THC levels been higher now then before came from, as we see it is the government with the invested interest propagandizing everything from Asia whether it be faith, cloths, food or Cannabis.

But it is no wonder why anyone here (government or not) would support hypothetical subjects like THC levels been higher to claim THC has anything to do with addiction, with out evidence, oink oinks hang ot here i bet.

 

[grimweeder]

the only thing thats changed in pot is the cannabinoid profiles of the strains being sold on the street, now the makeup of 99% of weed on the street is mostly thc the buds contains very little cbd or any other cannabinoids due to selective breeding etc etc.
the pot that was sold back then was all import an landrace strains that would be rich in many other cannabinoids aswell as thc, they may have been weaker in thc content but had a good % of other cannabinoids instead. that would also explain why pot may have been a lot stonier back then if it had higher levels of cbd, cbn etc.
jus the govt try to twist it an manipulate it to sound how they want it to.

 

[dopey the clown]

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a) tested in the 70s with outdated test methods different from the ones used today plus they were unrepresentative mexi brick schwag they got from big busts, or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..

Outdated does not render it moot. Don't you think you're reaching here bro? I'm not suggesting science is perfect, but to dismiss the results(that were pretty numerous) because the technology has gotten better is a mistake.

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.

Saying it over and over and over doesn't make it so. You say the stats are cooked while providing no evidence, other than to suggest that data collection wasn't as great in the 70's.

I'm not dismissing this "evidence" because the scientists who conducted it have put out outrageous lies and skewed statistics in the past,

True, but no reason to dismiss a study outright.

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.

How's that? With what evidence? Note that previous fallacy does not constitute evidence that this data is tainted.

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.

One of the two of us are misreading something. The link I'm looking at around 200-ish per year in the late 70's with a consistent upward swing. The first year they started recording was 1976 with 203 separate seizures of non-domestic alone.

Certainly not the be-all-end-all. They didn't go into every neighborhood baggie and ask for a pinch for research, but I think the numbers are reasonably effective for getting an idea.

That argument is pretty flawed and I suspect you know that.

I did. That was my lame attempt at humor.

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.

THC isn't everything, no doubt brother. Again, that to me is the much more interesting and relevant discussion. Have we cross-bred our way to higher lame numbers and lost a lot of sweet genetics that were prevalent back in the day? That's the interesting discussion right there.

 

[dopey the clown]

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.

If you want to calm down and talk like a big boy, I'd be happy to discuss this with you. If you insist on name-calling, I'll have to ignore you. Sorry.

If you'd like to rationally and calmly point me to where you think I back-tracked, or mislead, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.


Happy Holidays!

 

[Dislexus]

I motion all information touched by government funding be inadmissable to this thread. Its too untrustworthy to be considered evidence.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

It's not worth my time to discuss this with you, because all you believe is data from a university funded by the government and all data they release is funneled through government sources. But thank you, happy holidays to you too. and if you weren't a troll it wouldn't offend you to be called that..

 

[Shalom Rocket]

It's not worth my time to discuss this with you, because all you believe is data from a university funded by the government and all data they release is funneled through government sources. But thank you, happy holidays to you too. and if you weren't a troll it wouldn't offend you to be called that..

me he does not believe but works for them, Satan's little helpers.,, just some old ex prisoner trying to be a good Samaritan during the Christmas season so Santa will put some condoms in his sox.

 

[Hazelnuts]

Outdated does not render it moot.

No, but if they were using different methods to test back then than they're using now, they're gonna get different results. Thus you can't compare the two figures. And yes, I believe we're really looking at different stats, I read the first 10 pages or so until I got to the interesting tables where they mentioned like 15 seizures in the first year sometime in the 70s

 

[whiterasta]

the only thing thats changed in pot is the cannabinoid profiles of the strains being sold on the street, now the makeup of 99% of weed on the street is mostly thc the buds contains very little cbd or any other cannabinoids due to selective breeding etc etc.
the pot that was sold back then was all import an landrace strains that would be rich in many other cannabinoids aswell as thc, they may have been weaker in thc content but had a good % of other cannabinoids instead. that would also explain why pot may have been a lot stonier back then if it had higher levels of cbd, cbn etc.
jus the govt try to twist it an manipulate it to sound how they want it to.

Hooray for the one who hit the nail on the head! +K and kudos!
Unless the genes for potency have been altered we are working with no different upper limits on THC production than exists in the parent lineage. what we have seen is a vast change in the pecentages of expression of THC over other cannabinoids.This has been a huge negative for the genus IMHO. The effects of modern cultivated cannabis are vastly different than the old school imports of the sixties and seventies.
For one thing is most were cured by sweating them prior to drying which would lower THC and increase CBN changing the effect. then also they naturally were higher in CBD thus further altering the effects.
THC is largely a stimulant, increasing heart rate and standing B/P
The cannabis imported a few decades ago was not known for this but rather for giving a long lasting heavy stone in the better grades and a lesser but similar effects from lower grades. It was the combination of a more natural cannabinoid profile and the oxidative curing which account for the difference in effects of the legends of old and the legends of the new age. Potency is subject to the ability of the genes responsible for it and those genes have not been changed only rearranged.
WR

 

[quest]

I am going to toss commercial mexican, $10 a lid, from the equation. I can't remember having a bad experience with any weed from the 70's. I have smoked some strains in the past 15 years that have not been a good experience. Some leave you with that " is that what huffing paint is like"? feeling. Definately 100's to 1000's of years of cultivating a good medicine has been destroyed in many circumstances in favor of a "get yourself ripped product". Most of the Mid-to-high grade Mexicans ( Oaxacan, Alcapulco, Guerrero, Michoacan etc) would give you a very pleasant experience. The Columbians Red, Gold and Santa Marta gold were excellent. The Thai was at sometimes almost a religious experience. The Afghani hash was great and the Nepalese was incredible. I have found smoke in the last 15 years that is as good, in many ways as the landraces. It is just, I believe, the mixing of so many genetics without real pause to think of what one is truly after that has made a lot of crosses that are sub-par. Yes...I am an idiot.

 

[Hammerhead]

I would agree with Allot of the comments here. The smoke from the 70's was more enjoyable to me. Everything from the smell to the taste was better. Most of the pot I smoke today I don't like very much as the cannabinoid profile's have changed. I was a heavy smoker then now I can't even smoke a bowl as it makes me feel very paranoid. If someone(breeders) would change there practices to not solely focus on THC content and breed for a better cannabinoid profile would be a step in the right direction. IMO the pot from the 70's was better then the pot we have today. I try to only grow landrace strains but find it very difficult to find anything that reminds me of those days.

 

[TickleMyBalls]

the major difference in the weed that people smoked in the 70s and now that gave them the clear head or psychedelic experiences, is the fact that most of the weed was imported from tropical climates. Because of the more intense sunlight and longer growing season, these were very strong psychedelic sativas with very high THC-V content. This can only be acheived from the sun, in tropical climates, period.