Is our herb really multiple times more potent than 70s ganj?

I remember the most recent drug czar realizing that most people had tried herb, so he attempted to coaz parents into getting more zealous by saying that the stuff they harmlessly "experimented" with was very different from the "super strains" of modern day.


Any how if I went back in time and nicked a hippies sack would it really be exceptionally weaker than our standard chronic?

I've heard this argument many times too.
I would tend to believe it to simply be a tactic to try and make people believe this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NextLineIsMine

if I went back in time and nicked a hippies sack would it really be exceptionally weaker than our standard chronic?

---

The 'establishment' view that there is now some form of super strength weed that is destroying the very fabric of our society is just a fabric-ation!

Yes, weed is generally stronger now than in the 70's, but that's thanks to experienced (and well informed) growers like: stinky, weedhound, opie and rhizome passing on the benefit of their wisdom to a new generation of consumers.

The average 'hippie' back in the 70's wouldn't necessarily have known that letting a male plant pollinate a female would weaken the potency of the grass, and as a consequence their 'sack' would have only contained weak grass and seeds!

Damn, those hippies lol.

I recall the Acapulco gold we used to get back in them days.....I'd put that up against any strain grown today. There's just more good shit around these days with a greater variety.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LIP

Weed is stronger, but not as much as they'd have you think - they spew out the normal "10 times stronger, 20 times stronger" shit - it's only just about double - if that!

Indoor growing, removing males, selecting the best phenotypes, cross breeding etc etc is why it's stronger these days - but it could have been done back then too.

And anyway - the hash back then was better than the stuff we get now [in the UK, back then there was no such thing as soapbar - now it's everywhere]

So, herb HAS got slightly better, and hash has got alot worse [in regards to the UK cannabis market.]

---

agreed double, triple quadruple maybe if you are some crazy mad scientist, 10x and 20x is misleading, bigtime.

Peace,
Denial

Pot in the 60s and 70s got me high, then. Pot, now, gets me high. Not THAT much difference! No seeds and fewer stems is an improvement. Plus I prefer indica to sativa. - Granny:hippy:

Maybe some strains are more potent than the ones back in the 70s, but it can only ever be an assumption due to the absolutely huge amounts of strains that have ever existed with so many not being tested for THC content (which I hear is a quite complex procedure), many legendary strains are extinct now - apapulco gold, panama red, maui wowie, thai etc. and so many have never been tested...besides, increased strength means less needs to be smoked = better lung health

I think all the tampering is depleting strength,smoke is ok today but I haven't been zonked in years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheChameleon

I think all the tampering is depleting strength,smoke is ok today but I haven't been zonked in years.

---

That just doesn't make sense. Do you smoke constantly? Tolerance will build and takes a while to lower.

Weed in the 70's was similar in quality as it is today, in the usa you had green home grown looking stuff and commercial mexican or you had columbian hightest(some reds and golds were stupendous) or thai sticks. Lip is right some of what is available today is maybe 2X if that. It has to because of the genetic control available today. Hash was much better we used to able to get lebonese, afghani & nepalese of any color. 2 hits and you out to the 2nd degree because thats all tour lungs could take.