Please. No need to be condescending.Yes, they do like to repeat this lie over and over. Apparently, it seems you've fallen for it.
My point is that the quoted user misinterpreted a straightforward observation that ultimately lead to a conclusion.You can still find bunk weed today. What's your point?
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.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.
I agree that these stats can be misinterpreted. I wouldn't say they are intentionally misleading, though.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.
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?Perhaps when you learn that these people have no compunction in lying, fabricating, and manipulating statistics will you understand the controversy.
...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.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".
I think this is an important point. We should all make an E-pact to stop saying "it's just a plant."This is a drug, it doesn't matter if its from a plant.
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.Correction: pharma called & their shill is missing...
Are you implying that the researchers intentionally BS'ed the data to form an anti-cannabis consensus?
...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.
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.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 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.
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.
You believe, with no direct evidence, that scientists intentionally manipulated the data.
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.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.
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.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.
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