What's new

The myth of high THC %

G

Guest

For some time now, from every official avenue, cop and priest alike, we hear that todays marijuana is so much more potent. The most common sentiment is "this new marijuana is 25 % thc!!! "this isnt your daddy's marijuana today". And that statement is used to infer that cannabis today is a different drug and no one is sure what it will do to the young people , Oh God!!!


The assertion that increased thc percentages leads to a different effect on the user, as is implied by law enforcement and those that demogogue the issue, is a bunch of bull doo doo in my view.. Ive smoked a long time and i know that a person can only get so high on weed and it s really an issue of how much thc one has to ingest to reach that level. With potent weed, maybe a few tokes, with weak smoke, a couple of joints if at all..

All cannabis has a cieling and if you try to go beyond it, you will either nod or panic, but either will result in the user stopping his use immediately. No one in history has ever achieved a higher level of cannibis intoxication beyond panic or nod, ever, regaurdless of the potency or level of thc . Neither condition has shown to be harmful.

Given this fact, isnt any implication that higher thc equals a more intense effect misleading at best?
 
L

lalandia

They'll do anything to manipulate....F###ing a##holes

peace all
 
T

THC123

Active member
Veteran
IMHO it's all bullcrap.

I have grown seeds from the eighties that where more potent than most strains today , adn yes like you say , is it good , then u'll only smoke one joint , is it so-so a couple is it really bad , you will smoke even more or none at all untill you got better stuff
 
MarquisBlack

MarquisBlack

St. Elsewhere
Veteran
So here's another issue - does anyone know what the THC percentage means??

For example: Would 20% THC mean that 20% of the plant itself is THC? Would 20% mean that 20% of the bud is THC? Does it mean 20% of the cannabinoid profile is THC?

No one has ever been able to explain this to me.
 
S

sparkjumper

Its just not officials using THC% to their advantage many breeders make percentage claims also.
 
Rockster

Rockster

Member
JohnnyATL said:
i think its 20% per gram. whenever they do a test they use a gram of material i think
Click to expand...

But the thing is,extracted oil doesnt weigh 20% of the bud's weight when extracted so it can't be a percentage of the weight of whole bud but maybe 20% THC,80% other cannabinoids and terpenes?
 
HeadyPete

HeadyPete

Take Five...
Veteran
The advances in hybridization and also the technique of removing males and flowering out females segregated from males only came about in the 70s...a fat cola bursting with flowers and glistening with crystal is gonna roll a stronger joint than seedy, stringy bud from "your daddy's stash" (most of the time). All kinds of advances in the field of growing over the decades have made better, more potent buds easier to produce.

Cars can go faster these days. Should we outlaw that? Do we ban strong booze like 151 rum?

I'm glad my weed is better than my daddy's weed.... My tomatoes are better too.

You should smoke less if you can't handle it.

It's all so stupid - this so called war on drugs.
 
J

jakeh

Active member
All the older pot smokers I know say there was pot equally as strong as the pot we have today in the 60's and 70's. The difference is there is more of the good stuff available now. If anything they complain that the plant has been hybridized to hell and back and would actually like to have some of non crossed strains they fear are long gone. As for only being able to get so high I would personally agree. I can smoke almost daily with 2 ounces out of my 1 hitter in a year. My neighbor could smoke that in a month and scoffs at the thought of using a 1 hitter because he will clog it by the time he has smoked a days worth of pot. In my opinion he is getting no higher at the same time his pot is getting much lower. I think they call it a point of diminishing returns. To each his own.
 
O

OrganicManic

New member
It is ridiculous. If it is stronger now then before, wouldnt that just mean more of the same effect? You wouldnt believe some of the crap i hear around where i live. Like just the other day i was in another heated discussion on the topic and someone actually said that it "kills brain cells" and "can make you angry and depressed"! OMG, are you f***ing retarded? Recent studies actually show that marijuana when used regularly in a high dose can actually promote the growth of new neurons!!

If you do want to say that MJ is more potent these days then lets look at what all THC can help with:

I wish people would just read. lol
 
JQP

JQP

Member
I hope the stuff I have budding right now is as good as some of the Acapulco Gold and Panama Red we were getting in the early 70's. Especially the Acapulco gold. I'd always smoked Mexican weed before. Sometimes a bunch of us would sit around and go through an ounce of Mexican in an evening. There's still stuff like the Mexican around, but most the stuff I've been getting off the street the last few years is okay, but it doesn't get you as high, nor does it ever seem to taste as good as some of that great South American weed we were getting back then.

I'm a one hit guy nowadays, and don't go through a lot of weed. Most of my friends I used to get stoned with have quit, but not all. and now I have two grown children who get high with me, which is cool. They are anxiously awaiting the results of my grow.

JQ
 
BACKCOUNTRY

BACKCOUNTRY

Mourning the loss of my dog......
Veteran
My dad, who has been smoking since the early 70s, often looks down on newer strains that come through the house through me. Many are flavorless or have non-dynamic highs in his opinion.

But for his part, he smoked Thai stick, Columbian, Acapulco gold, Hawaiian and a host of other potent tropical sativa imports, back in the 70s, as well as the wonderful(local and new) skunky Sinsemilla that was becoming all the rage in Nor-Cal at the time(we used to live near San Francisco).

He never smoked the weak Mexican brick weed that came in, not with the all the good stuff available in the Bay area at the time. If you compared todays weed which is mostly Indica dom indoor, with the Tropical sativas imported back then, as well as with the typical cheep Mexican brick, I think you'd find the Tropical sativas were even stronger than todays weed, and Mexican brick falling way behind both.

At any rate, there has been few lies bigger and more inaccurate than the US police states attack on Cannabis, pure lies, and all over a substance that a vast number of Americans know is far safer than portrayed, from personal experience.

It irks me to wonder how much of my tax dollars are spent spreading mis-information.
 
A

alpinestar

the myth has to do with several factors

theres no standard testing

brick weed is compared to homegrown compared to hash but theyre all grouped under the same thing most of the time

haze still is one of the strongest if not the strongest strains around and it was developed in the 60's

just because these idiots who say weed is stronger never smoked anything but mexican brick back in the day, they assume thats all there was
 
G

Guest

Hi everyone.

Some very good points have been made here

I agree with those that believe the smoke of the late 60's-70's was every bit as potent as anything available today. The alcapulco gold i smoked was incredible. I remember that i had to pay 25$ an oz when most weed was 10-15$ an ounce. I spent my entire 3 hundred dollar tax refund on it. Thai and Thai stick, columbo gold and then red.

I don't know where you can buy seeds that were as potent as some of that stuff.

I also believe that breeders may have provided this torpedo to the authorities by touting meaningless percentages in an effort to sell their seeds, but like others have said the number has no practical value.
....and whoever it was that said" if it isnt 25% of the weight of the plant than it isnt 25%"

That simple fact seems to escape many.
 
groady-ho

groady-ho

as is all-too-common in my life, I succumbed to my
Veteran
not to change the subject, but does anyone here remember when bags were sold by finger count not oz's..2, 3, 4, finger bags..i do..peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top