claim of increased potency

[????????]

i know this

[The myth that marijuana is more potent today than in the past] is the result of bad data. The researchers who made the claim of increased potency used as their baseline the THC content of marijuana seized by police in the early 1970s. Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed. Contemporaneous, independent assays of unseized "street" marijuana from the early 1970s showed a potency equivalent to that of modern "street" marijuana. Actually, the most potent form of this drug that was generally available was sold legally in the 1920s and 1930s by the pharmaceutical company Smith-Klein under the name, "American Cannabis".

yet i keep reading that weed is much more potent now. i'm right now holding a local newspaper that claims this. the title of the article is SUPERMARIHUANA. it says that "recent studies" (it doesn't say which) prove that 50 years ago THC concentration was less than 5 % and now is 14% (!). It says that this is a result of better techniques in growing and better soil, weather and fertilizer.

i smell their bullshit from far away but what could i say to people to show them how this is not so? does this myth really just comes from bad data from the '70s like the quote above says? what do you think?

 

[Forkbender]

Write a letter to the newspaper to rectify.

 

[restin]

I also read it really really often. I also heard of people claiming that weed nowadays is too strong to use recreationally...

 

[lol*fan]

I think I've heard long time marihuana users say (on the internets) that nowadays weed is 'just too strong', in The Netherlands anyway. In that case, it's just people noticing, no scientific studies needed.

 

[GOD]

How do the smokers that claim that the grass grown nowadays is stronger than it used to be "know" ?

My opinion .

A lot of the grass that was confiscated years ago was bad quality home grown .

A lot of the seeeds came from bird seed and industrial hemp .

The tests were done on the whole plant and now they are done on the buds .

The tests were talking about the 2 active THCs ingredients and now they are talking about the other THCs as well .

I`ve never had indoor grass that made me high , it only made me sedated . Good outdoor grass always made me high .

 

[st.bot.32]

A lot of anti-drug propagandists are spreading outright bogus crap like "marijuana is 400 times stronger than it was in the 70's"

at least I'm seeing that pop up on the internet these days

also i don't know any of these "smokers" who claim that weed is stronger than it used to be, I highly suspect they are being cherry-picked

 

[phatass]

I believe hydroponic weed nowdays has a higher concentration of thc than weed in the 70s which was grown mostly outdoors without all the special products used to make it more potent... however i prefer smoking weed that isn't too strong.. natural or "natty" :wink:

 

[GOD]

You believe . Why ? Based on what ?

 

[im1badpup]

"Poor storage of this marijuana in un-air conditioned evidence rooms caused it to deteriorate and decline in potency before any chemical assay was performed"

:lol: very true the pigs took 289g of very good quality but only about 50% dry skunk from someone i know, which when they raided his house had been put into plastic tupperware containers, (it was been "sweat dried" put in the boxes for an hour or two then removed, to the open air, when crispy on the outside replaced back in the boxes and so on)
Anyway, because nothing was said in interview, the police had to test it, and was in no particular hurry it seems, 5 months later when charges was brought,
the weed was described, " vegetable leaf matter covered in mould of very poor quality"
i do also believe weed hasnt got any stronger, testing and storage methods have improved, media coverage of so called "superskunk" a number of years ago created hysteria, i remember the smokers back then asking everywhere for "superskunk" after reading it in the papers.
god made an interesting point there, why is outdoor weed more "trippy" and the indoor stuff more sat on your arse material?

 

[Meduzz]

There probably is more THC in modern plants than older ones because of artificial selection. But the sketchy study and it's numbers are exaggerated imo .

 

[spice]

What I am noticing no one commenting on is this;

The introduction of Indica dominant marijuana strains has radically altered the cannabinoid profile.

For example, I've heard GOD make many comments about the sedative effects of modern indoor weed. I agree, and believe that much of this is the fault of commerce-minded breeders who have diluted the sativa gene-pool with fast-maturing, heavier-yielding indicas.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. There's no way an Afghani Indica will get you as high as an equatorial landrace sativa.

The ratios (profile) of cannabinoids are radically different.

I believe that the potency is about the same, and that PERHAPS it is a slight bit better, on average, these days.....as far as potency goes.

But it's not like they say, no.

 

[GOD]

"There probably is more THC in modern plants than older ones because of artificial selection."

The people / growers in the past had stable strains that they had bread the strongest with thge strongest for thousands of years . The plants that are around nowadays are mostly hybrids .

Afghani grass wasnt grow to be smoked it was grown to produce the best hashish . If you get morocan hash plants and smoke the grass its realy crap . If you get real morocan kiff plants the grass is very nice to smoke .

The potency ( that doesnt have to mean the quality of the high it can also meanthe drug effect ) of the average indoor grass thats grown nowadays is better than the potency of a lot of comercialy grow outdoor plants . One just has to go to holland and compare the potency of the indoor grass and the quality of the real cheep imported african grass thats often full of seeds .

The strongest plants in holland are still suposed to be some of the pure hazes and that is originaly an outdoor plant made from mexican , columbian and acapulco grass . ( If i remember right ) .

Good afghani hash or good nepali hash blows the socks off even the strongest grass .

So its what sort of plant it is , grass or hash and who bred the grass and why that effects the potency .

 

[????????]

Write a letter to the newspaper to rectify.

send some advice through their website :wink:

 

[Shmauli]

i havn't seen any research to form an opinion but i am inclined to think that weed has in no way gained potency.
but even if it has, why do they make it out as something to be scared of? it's actually healthier because you end up smoking less leaf/bud for the same amount of THC.