Printable View
How much of that information is true about marijuana being less potent in the past? I was just wondering because my friend said it was bullshit cause they used six month old ditch weed or something. Cause they musta gonten blazed as hell in the sixty's and seventies by how it looks.
Nah bro the weed back then sucked compared to now, the best they had was like accopulco gold or tied stick maowi wowi those are all mid grad buds now days northern lights was the most potent back then but back then northernlights was like a myth that every one spoke of, but never tried. Except all those people from northern cali(thats where NLX5 originates) they wernt high man they were trippin on LSD and mescaline and shit like that
I have no idea about the THC content of the best 70's stuff vs. today's best. On average, I'd say it's probably stronger today - but the strongest stuff of the past was better than the average stuff is today. Thai stick (not "tied") came in different varieties, and the best of that would fetch a LOT of money even today - IF you could get it. It's not just a question of THC - the highs were very, very enjoyable and long-lasting. The taste itself was incredible. We also were lucky to get very strong hash - especially Nepalese and Tibetan. Getting totally stoned out of your mind was never a problem if you had the right connections and could afford it. They had Black Gungi in New York, for a higher price, even back in the 1940's (before my time, lol). If there was a supply of good imported weed and hash today, and not the current strains, people would still be satisfied. The average smoker would not even want the very best in the world - they'd be satisfied with Acapulco Gold, Columbian Red/Gold, Michocan, Panama Red or even less powerful stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by damightyquinn
Breuk is right. Take it from another original 70s-era stoner. It's much stronger now, and I think that's true of even what was considered the best back in those days. In Texas we could easily get Acapulco gold, and it was a good high but nothing like the stuff I tried last year and nothing like what I've seen and read about here. Growers have had 30 years to develop better growing techniques from better seeds. Design better hybrids. Nurture stronger plants through generations of breeding for more "desirable" qualities and higher amounts of trichomes and hence THC. It all combines to make for better weed.
Don't get me wrong. We still had fun in the 70s. And often that was because people were combining weed with various other substances, none of which I can talk about here. Except possibly to mention beer, which was what weed was mostly combined with during my college years.
I remember a guy that I knew, in the early 1970's, who had a chemical test kit that gave the percentage of THC in samples of marijuana - the idea being that you could test different types at the dealers' place and go home with the best, or whatever you thought was the right thing. That product failed to catch on because it didn't give you a clue as to the quality of the high.
That's actually a great idea, but I'm guessing your average stoner would rather spend the money on weed than test kits, thus reducing the motivation to test much of anything, except possibly inhalation techniques.
When I was first trying to brush back up on weed last year when my sister was sick and we were trying to find cannabis-based help, I remember being fascinated by one of the seed sites, which told approximately what the THC levels were in its various strain offerings. We rarely knew what strain it was in my college days, much less its THC percentages.
The stats from a test kit really can't tell you much with marijuana, other than a number. It's like stereo equipment - you can buy two different brands of gear that have the same specs, and they'll usually sound totally different, tone and/or volume-wise. Often, the speakers, amp, or whatever with the worse specs sound better - and may or may not be more expensive than their competition. It's the design, and I have theories (not very popular with some people here) that a lot of the hybrid super-strains are causing anxiety and other problems, as evidenced by the postings that turn up here frequently.Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
When high-end Columbian Golds and Reds first came around in the 70's, a lot of my friends were happier with less-powerful varieties - either "commercial", cheaper Columbian, or Jamaican, Mexican, etc. There is no question that the top-of-the line buds of today are stronger than those powerful Columbians, and this is just too much for most people that smoke. These kids that are rolling 2 or 3 gram blunts of it, for themselves, are going way overboard.
the weed today is definately stronger, loads more strains have been crossed with each other to give us some excellent bud, and with technology today we have much better equipment to grow and control the beautifull herb:jointsmile:
The genetics have changed, and growing methods and environments, so, yes it IS stronger today, but most defiantly not as much as they'd like you to think. BUT, it's a good thing. People seem to be running around like headless chickens shouting weed is super strong, dont smoke it, but the point is, it's a good thing. If it's strong, you dont need to smoke as much - and even though cannabis smoke hasnt been proven to cause cancer or anything serious, it must be better for the body to inhale less smoke.
So, the argument that weed has got stronger means nothing. It's another tool used on idiots.
today it is much much stronger cross breeding and different nutrients and methods of growing have caused an effect for a much better smoke and much better genetics and over the years the alleles and traits for each strain have gotten much stronger based on more homozygous dominant traits for more thc and tallers larger plants