In this MPSIMS thread, several folks have stated as fact that parents should realize that “pot these days is stronger than when they smoked.” Is anyone aware of any evidentiary basis for this? Since all aspects of the market are illegal, I wonder at the reliability of testing data.
Now, I’m certainly not about to admit any illegal activity here. But “my friend” tells me that when he smoked back in the 70s-80s, he always bought and smoked the best he could get. And it was plenty strong for his purposes, but it was still the manageable pot-high. And on the occasion he has partaken in the 00s, it has always been the best he could get from people who have access to a variety of product in a major market, and it is plenty strong for his purposes, but still the manageable pot high. No noticeable difference in today’s pot being stronger, getting him more fucked up, than before.
Maybe a lot of people were smoking crap ditchweed “back in the day”, and the market has improved such that more folk are now able to get their hands on quality product with higher THC content. So I can understand someone saying “If you smoked ditchweed when you were young, your kid may have access to premium weed that is much better than what you smoked.” But its not as tho the pot folks can buy and smoke today will make your head explode or anything.
People are cross breeding, cloning and intensifying the marijuana grown today. Instead of the old brown frown, brick, shwag there is the new and improved super white rhino, humboldt county, northern lights, purple haze almost crack weed of the 21st century.
You can still get the shwag of the old days, I guess it depends on what you are looking for and how much you want to spend, but there are all varietys available.
To answer your Q, yes the weed of the 21st century is much more powerful if you get the right stuff.
All this coming from someone raised in the guns n roses 80’s - who saw many a white snake concert high on the regular shwag…
The 21st century data from this post is purely what I read only…
See, I guess that’s my point. Not everyone “back in the day” smoked “old brown frown, brick, schwag.” If that’s the comparison they are making, I wonder if it’s apt. And I bet there are plenty of folks today smoking the hemp they pick by the side of the road and trying to convince themselves they are getting high.
When did the sinsimella production method become widespread (ie removing the male plants before they fertilize the ladies), because that does lead to a increase in THC levels. I’ve seen increases from 4 to 14% quoted.
As an aside, in the UK there has been a shift over the last twenty-ish years from really rather poor quality hash to pretty good hydroponically grown marijuana being widely available. This means that the average provincial teen probably does have access to more potent stuff nowadays than their parents ever did. I’d imagine.
“My friend” tells me folks were doing it in the 70s. As a side note, I was mildly surprised and amused to see High Times at the corner newstand. hadn’t thought of that rag for years. But 25 years ago it had all the info anyone would need to know about how to grow the strongest possible weed, as well as info for any discriminating buyer.
Subjectively, yes I think it is stronger than back in the 70s. But back then I smoked so much of it that I would sometimes put on a jacket to go out and find a bag of heads or a block of hash in the pocket. I started to lose interest in the 80s but still kept smoking some here and there. My lower intake makes it hard to tell how strong it is and I know that there are lots of political/social agendas that encourage people to lie, so I tend to temper my anecdotal view by checking stuff like this.
Found [url=http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/thc-content.htm#weed] this**, which would suggest all types of pot are significantly stronger today. I wonder how reliable it is to express judgments of the entire market based on “seized” samples?
Like I said, I can buy the statement If 20 years ago you smoked crap that gave you a mild buzz, today your kid has more ready access to the type of primo herb you should have been smoking.
It may be stronger and it may not. But the thing a lot of these stories are missing is that “kids today” don’t smoke it in the same way their moms and dads (or grandmoms and granddads) did. My old pothead friends tell me that the method used to be to smoke a LOT of weed. Bowls would be almost continually passed during the night, and the room would be constantly hotboxed. It wasn’t unusual to go through a 1/4 in one evening with three or four friends.
Nowadays, a 1/4 will last four friends for a month or more. Four bowls, spaced an hour or so apart, will keep a small party going all night.
So, even assuming we buy Their nonexistent data on higher THC content by percent of leaf weight, I highly suspect that the actual THC *consumption *is, on average, about the same. More importantly, I suspect that They don’t care about such fiddling details.
There was a huge variation in the pot available even in the 70’s. In those days, a lot of my friends and I were smoking some grades of pot that were mostly leaves, not flowers. A much more mellow high, you could go to work or school and not forget your name. But there was higher end product available, like honest-to-god Thai sticks that were premium ass-kicking bud that would compare favorable with anything sold today. And there was everything in between.
I have it on good authority that 25 years ago folks knew perfectly well that one hitters and one-hit bongs were the most economical way to smoke. Not that there wasn’t enjoyment to be had in passing around a party bowl or a nice fat joint.
David Spade has a good bit about this, where he says pot now is so strong vs. in the 70’s where you could smoke a whole “lid” and then end result was “you feel a little itchy”.
This reminds me of my senior year in high school, when we got a new Track coach. He posted his rules of conduct on the locker room bulletin board. Number 1 read: “No Smoking— that’s common sense.” A day later it had been defaced to “No smoking that common sinse.”
Anyway, I encountered the “superbud” when I was 20, from a guy who had been a bicycle messenger in NYC. I bought an ounce for $160, which was outrageous then, and made it last a month, with the help of half a dozen friends. This was 1986, so I maybe it depends on which “parents” you’re talking about.
Well, until we can do a legal market survey & extensive product testing, the question remains up in the air.
My sources inform me that Big Taste was available in The Old Days; ah, the Red Hairs! But El Cheapo was more widespread. (Especially here in Texas.)
I’ve read High Times & applaud the evident advances. But–how much of that stuff is available to “kids, these days”? There’s still plenty of El Cheapo, although the price has gone up considerably; but that’s inflation, not an increase in the baseline strength.
Some of this “well, it’s much stronger now” seems like an excuse for the heads of yore. They may have smoked their brains out, but don’t want their kids doing the same.
I wonder about that too. The sinsemilla we had in the late 1970s enough to get you high from a coupld of tokes; how much stronger is it possible for pot to be? It’s dried leaves, not the product of laboratory refining.
