Is there any truth to the popular conception that current THC levels is far higher than previous due to selective and interbreeding of strains? Not heresay or secondhand talk but empirical scientific evidence. Just curious.
Printable View
Is there any truth to the popular conception that current THC levels is far higher than previous due to selective and interbreeding of strains? Not heresay or secondhand talk but empirical scientific evidence. Just curious.
No.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...is_myth2.shtml
Marijuana of under 0.5% potency has almost no psychoactivity. While it is possible that people sometimes obtained marijuana of such low potency, for the drug to have become popular in the 1960s and 1970s, most people must have regularly obtained marijuana with higher THC content.
Until the late 1970s, PMP samples included none of the traditionally higher-potency cannabis products, such as buds and sinsemilla, even though these products were available on the retail market. When changes in police practices resulted in their seizure, PMP potency averages increased.
Every independent analysis of potency in the 1970s found higher THC averages than the PMP For example, the 59 samples submitted to PharmChem Laboratories in 1973 averaged 1.62%; only 16 (27%) contained less than 1% THC, more than half were over 2% and about one-fifth were over 4%. In 1975, PharmChem samples anged from 2 to 5%, with some as high as 14% - nearly 30 times the .71 average reported by the PMP.
Beachguy is correct. There is just more of the high quality stuff available now than there was in the 70's because so many more people are growing with much better and more affordable technology.
I see, thanks for the comments man, well done! :)
I don't know what to think, my parents have both had some of my stuff and say it's way stronger than the stuff they smoked back in the 60's.
I have been smoking since 1970 And there is no doubt that the shit I am smoking now days is better than what I used to smoke. I lived in Calif then and we smoked mainly mexican weed. But it was only 100 for a pound so you could smoke it and eat it all you wanted.
I know there was sinse around then but it was a rarity.
So there was good stuff then but not as comon as it is now.
Thank God :D
This is a substance that has been growing since the beginning of time. It's like saying the common housecat has "gotten stronger" since the 1960s. Ridiculous! What has changed are inventions like the airplane and internet. It's technology and availability, period.
well think about do ur parents smoke alot if not then they are gona get toasted if its good stuff or not
Well, you have to take into consideration the workout regimens some of us are putting our cats on, nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonboy
haha i dont even wanna know what that encompasses.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
but anyway, those claims are the most bullshitty bullshit ive ever heard. i remember reading about that when i was doing research on canna before i ever even smoked it. bottom line is, its a fucking plant, not some kind of home made drug that you can alter how you like. im too fucked up on painkillers right now to expand on my point... but its pretty clear that claim is some bs.
indoor growing... dealers/growers have also figured out that the more effort they put into there plant will help them when it comes time to sell the bud... more money for better bud.
I've heard from those people who have smoked back in the 70's and are still smoking now that some of the stuff back then was VERY GOOD. Panama red etc.
alot of bad weed went around, but also good weed went around.
the more things change, the more uhh... what was i saying? :)