I’ve heard that today’s pot is X times more potenet than the stuff in the sixties, but I am not sure if I believe it.
On the one hand, I could see how selective breeding can get a plant with more THC, but the more cynical side says this is just propaganda so parents can tell their kids, “Yeah, I smoked pot when I was younger and survived, but this stuff nowadays will kill you!!!” Any evidence whether it is truth or propaganda?
This claim is often dragged out by DARE, the DEA, and other folks. According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML,) it’s simply not true. The government’s own figures for the potency of pot confiscated in the sixties and today are nearly identical. As for “this stuff today will kill ya,” nobody ever died from using pot.
That said, I’m not claiming it’s harmless. Smoking anything is bad for you. Acquiring the stuff will put you in contact with lawbreakers, and that’s risky. You may incur a disrespect for your government, and that may bring unintended anger into your life. The effects of the drug itself may make you less competent for things like driving, studying, and remembering what your dad just asked you. The worst risk, of course, is the penalties and expense the government will dump on you if you get caught.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info16.shtml
NON- NORMALIZED
Year THC CBD CBC CBN
% % % %
1974 0.89 0.03 0.08 0.49
1984 3.29 0.24 0.17 0.34
1994* 4.45 0.40 0.21 0.33
The “normalized” data (see link) support a factor of 10 because those numbers are quite low in 1974/75.
Other sites suggest an increase in average THC content from ~2% in the 60’s to ~6.5% in the 90’s.
Looks like this is a case of dubiously possible truth being spread with the intent to deceive. People got pretty stoned back in the 60’s. Some people get pretty stoned today. It might take a bit less pot to do so nowdays.
I never understood this supposed statistic, based on personal experience. Course I always did my best to buy decent quality. No appreciable difference I can tell.
The only explanation I could imagine is that there might be less ditchweed available today than in decades past. If a greater percentage of pot sold today is of higher quality, could that explain the “increased potency” claim?
Even if they are, so what? THC is one of the least toxic drugs on the planet. According to http://www.cannabis.com/ezine/just_say_know/1.shtml, the LD-50 for THC is something between 400,000 to 4,000,000 times a normal dose. Think you can smoke 400,000 joints
fast enough to keep all that THC in your system? I haven’t tried it myself, but I’m nearly certain you’d lapse unconscious long before your 100th joint.
Yes, if you smoke pot - or cigarettes - or a pipe - or etc for hours on end with no little or no breaths inbetween, you will die of carbon monoxide inhalation. That’s not concentrated THC killing you, though, that’s purely from inhaling something that’s burning. You’d die from continuously inhaling burning sawdust, too, because of the carbon monoxide.
So what if current pot is 10x stronger than it was in the 1960’s? That’s like saying sugar is 10x purer today than it was in the 1960’s. Big whoop.
I don’t like pot as a drug. I think it makes people slow and stupid. Though, unlike alcohol (another drug that makes people slow and stupid) at least it doesn’t seem to make some people violent. And there’s the fact that you’re most likely smoking it instead of making brownies. So you’ll stain up your teeth, increase your risk of tongue, mouth and throat cancer, and screw up your lungs. And I think people who get in cars after smoking pot are pretty dumb too.
But the fact remains: THC is about as hard to overdose on as drugs get. Current pot could be 10,000x stronger than the old stuff and I’d still say, hey smoke away if that’s your kick. Cecil sez… http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_225.html
-Ben
There is some very potent weed around now - the stuff that is hydroponicly grown from selectively bred strains. Sometimes the seeds are imported from europe (there are companies from which you can get an amazing number of varieties), sometimes the best plants are cloned.
I’ve read some facinating articles in High Times about the process.
But this is the rare, expensive stuff. How much can someone grow in a hidden basement as compared to out in a field? Plus it takes money and skilled labor to get a ‘sea of green’ going.
The vast majority of what’s available is the same as it ever was.
I posted the first reply in this thread, and I need to slightly amend what I said. I keep forgetting this is an international board. For the benefit of folks outside the USA, the “government” I spoke of is the US one. The DEA is the US Drug Enforcement Administration. DARE is a massive anti-drug propaganda group aimed at US children.
–Nott, the large
It’s difficult to make accurate comparisons between today’s pot and pot of the 1960’s for several reasons:
-
The THC content back then was reduced greatly due to poor “curing” and shipping techniques of the exporters. Pot was often cured in the sun (reduces THC content), and then compressed into bricks (further reducing THC content) often arriving moldy and tattered (even more THC reduction). People back then didn’t really understand that THC degrades rapidly from heat, light, and poor handling. Domestic indoor pot nowadays is immaculately grown and cured, retaining nearly all its natural goodness. It’s therefore likely that pot today really isn’t much stronger than pot of the 1960’s, other things being equal.
-
Pot then was nearly always the Sativa variety, which has a much higher stem-to-flower ratio than today’s denser Indica variety commonly grown domestically. Only the flower parts are potent; the stems have no THC. When researchers measure the THC content in a pot “bud”, they generally don’t separate the flowers from the stems (a painstaking process), they just weigh the whole thing. So pot samples today appear higher in THC due to the “tighter” bud structure. The only way to do an accurate comparison is to compare just the calyxes, with stems removed. Unfortunately there’s no pot left from that era to do such a comparison, since most of the strains have disappeared (Panama Red, Oaxacan, Thai, etc).
-
Pot back then nearly always contained seeds (since growers didn’t bother to separate male plants from females). Pot today is usually “sinsemillia” (seedless). Seeds add considerable weight to a bud sample, thus reducing the relative THC percent greatly. It is doubtful that researchers then bothered to remove the seeds when weighing bud samples, because it’s a very “sticky” process that reduces potency.
So comparing today’s pot to yesteryear’s pot is like comparing apples and oranges. It’s really just a tactic to dissuade people from taking drugs. Governmentally-unapproved drugs, that is. You may take as much as much Prozac™ as you wish.
……………………
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” – Thomas Jefferson
Actually, pot doesn’t have to be smoked to be consumed. It can be eaten, and also “vaporized”. A vaporizer is a device that produces no smoke, so there is no risk of lung damage typically associated with smoking. Of course don’t expect the prohibitionists to inform you about this.
…
"It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog. " – Mark Twain
[link deleted]
[Edited by bibliophage on 11-14-2001 at 09:46 AM]
From that website: "Use your Vaporizer anywhere! Home, car, caravan, camping, boat"
I think smoking, or toking if you will, in the car falls under the category “bad for you”. Also, how good is the buzz using the vaporizer? Has anyone performed any, ah, tests on the product?
[Edited by bibliophage on 11-14-2001 at 09:46 AM]
To clarify further: DARE: Drug Awareness and Resistance Education. This program is run in elementery schools by local police departments. There has been some question as to the overall effectivness of this program, and a lot of communities no longer fund them.
I believe it. I used to be able to smoke one fat joint all by myself back in the sixties. Now, after one toke, I find myself struggling to resume sobriety. Could be that the weed offered to me these days is home grown British Columbian. Also I rarely smoke pot at all any more, which might affect my tolerance when I do.
Fandango: I think the claim is pure horseshit myself. I’ve smoked weed on damn near a daily basis for 26 years & the best stuff I ever toked was some Columbian gold I got in late 1977. Mithra, I would like to get some more of that stuff.
I remember the first time I got ahold of some of that “newfangled” hydroponic skunkweed, as opposed to the crumbly brown “cambodian” stuff that was so ubiquitous in the '80s. What a difference.
I quit smoking pot on a regular basis over a year ago, because I’ve been troubled by a chronic sore throat which I’m really starting to worry about. [sub]Pleasegoddon’tletitbecancer[/sub] I still enjoy the occasional THC buzz via Sacred Ghee, added to a meal or a cup of cocoa. Mmmmm.
As far as the vapourizer thing goes. You are kidding yourself if you think that those things are easier on your lungs than smoke. Having a bunch of thick oil condense in your lungs is not pleasant. Before I realized what a crock they were, I had more than a couple minute long, “I can’t breathe oh my god I’m going to die call 911 please” experience. You can get the air into your lungs, fine, but you’ve coated the poor things with gunk. You know how nasty the glass in a vapourizer gets? Uck.
If you must consume cannabis, eating it is probably the least harmful route.
Back to the OP, if pot does contain more THC these days, great! You’re much better off if you fill a tiny bowl and take a couple of puffs to catch a buzz, than if you smoke a cigar-sized chonger of schwag to achieve the same end.