Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Disclosure:

The statements in this forum have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and are generated by non-professional writers. Any products described are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

Website Disclosure:

This forum contains general information about diet, health and nutrition. The information is not advice and is not a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.

Vietnamese Black

Discussion in 'Seasoned Marijuana Users' started by sneakers, Jun 1, 2007.

Page 2 of 6
  1. #21 emeyeseeachaeel, Jun 3, 2007
    ive heard that THC levels are higher today, but what about CBD levels? those cause the mental trip, don't they?


    I might be talking out of my ass, sorry
     
  2. #22 Horus XCIII, Jun 3, 2007
    Kind of. I've read that pure THC levels cause an intense mental high, and can even cause psychosis-mimicing behavior in some people. Here there be Sativas. CBD levels, when taken without THC, cause a cloudy narcotic buzz, and when they go with thc (here there be Indicas) they tend to relax the high, and prevent the psychomimetic stuff.
     
  3. #23 Champion^Lungs, Jun 4, 2007

    Well what are you smoking as far as strains, and do you have a club card sneakers? if so go to Humble county up north in California, if you are too far come to the bay. you well not be dissapointed, also what are you smoking it out of? and try eatables when you smoke the body fry well be intense and its great so try and reply with answers if you can. if you can send me a message xstonichx@hotmail.com
     
  4. #24 Canabudz, Jun 4, 2007
    i've gotten shitty ass wet brown mexican brick that does this. i'm pretty sure its due to the bud being overripe to the max. the crystals are all brown. all the cannabinoids start to turn into CBD/CBN and other things that will almost make you sick.
     
  5. #25 horror business, Jun 13, 2007
    In my past experiences with mexican brick weed, I too have noticed sometimes it is surprisingly potent, and usually psychedelic. But, I've also noticed that the high doesn't last long at all, compared to today's standards. It usually tastes horrible, nothing pleasant at all about the taste, etc... That's why I no longer buy anything less than high mids, and that's rare.

    I see it this way. For instance, you could buy a boquet (sp) of fresh flowers that smell and look amazing. Or you could buy a boquet (sp) of dead, brown, old flowers for a considerably cheaper price. Both satisfy your desire to have flowers, so they both "do the job", but why would you want something of low quality?

    One thing I'm curious about, and this is addressed to the older smokers, is back in the "old days" (60's-70's) when you bought weed, what did it look like? Was it always compressed? Were there visible trichomes on the buds? Was the smell skunky, or some other scent? Before sinsemilla arrived, when you bought weed, did you ever get male plants in the mix as well as females?

    By the way this is my first post here, but I'm also a member at cannabis.com and have been for quite some time, under the same user name.

    Peace,
    horror business ;)
     
  6. #26 sneakers, Jun 13, 2007
    Most of what you say is true. The weed in those days wasn't purchased for taste, in fact, in those days that is all there was. The Vietnamese Black I started this thread with sure wasn't purchased for taste but for it's potency. I wasn't aware that Mexican brick weed was even still available. All of the Mexican weed I have seen in the past decade or 2 has been called "dirt weed" or "mexican dirt weed" and isn't worth the match it takes to set it on fire. It seems the quality of almost all of the Mexican MJ became worthless in the late 70s. This was about the time we started seeing Columbian Red Bud, etc. and many more named strains. It was probably about the mid 80s before we ever tasted anything with a "pine" taste or smell (called Sensimillia) and after that came skunk and others. Even one of the first "name brands" was called Thai Stick (earlier post mentioned this) and there was nothing special about the taste or smell, only the quality.

    Although noone else seems to think that the MJ back in the old days was any good and surely not as good as anything today, it would be nice to hear someone say that who has actual experience from those days rather than voicing an opinion based on what someone else has told them or something they read.

    Either my resistance was extremely low the first decade I smoked MJ compared to the last 3 decades or the MJ back then is comparable to that purchased today. Someone in this thread mentioned that although the THC levels are greater now, what about the trichome levels and potency? They say there is more THC today but is the THC as potent, the same or more potent today as it was 40 years ago? I also consider the fact that there were fewer strains of MJ and each strain was a more pure strain. Look at seeds available from seedbanks today. Most are a mix of Sativa and Indica. Only 1 time have I ever seen seeds advertised as 100% Indica. Could this have anything to do with potency? There may be a lot more to the potency than testing the THC levels of todays plants. What test was used to determine THC levels and was the exact same test used 40 years ago. Where did the samples of a 40 yr old crop come from for samples to use for testing in todays world?

    As far as MJ purchased in the 60s and 70s, from the late 60s to early 70s, mexican brick weed is all that was available. It was normally all leafy material. Buds in those days were either non-existant or were broken up before it was sold. Pretty much impossible to tell whether it was male or female. My guess is it was probably both. Do you really think the mexican growers actually threw away any male plants?

    Hell, in the late 70s and early 80s the government sprayed much of the mexican MJ crop with a substance called paraquat (spelling) and it killed their crop. The growers still tried selling this tainted stuff even though it was harming those who smoked it. I really doubt male plants were discarded.

    The smell back then was all the same it seemed. It smelled like MJ. Anything that smelled different was looked at very sceptically. There were no visible trichromes. If there was any seed in the bag they were usually at the bottom of the bag as their were never any buds.

    A baggie would be filled as full as it could be, barely able to even close it. It was all leafy material and the cost was 10 bux for a bag that was supposed to be an ounce but was probably more. An lb. cost 100 bux and kilos were like 160-180. All mexican brick weed. In those days an oz. of MJ or a bag of MJ was called a "can" of weed and it cost 10 bux. The term "can" came from the amount being equal to filling an empty Prince Albert tobacco can full with MJ. They were also called "Lids" then. I have no idea where that term came from.
     
  7. #27 Canabudz, Jun 14, 2007
    i found a seedbank that has viet combo vietnamese x vietnamese black, unless someone already said this haha. am i allowed to post links? i wont. haha


    £15 for 10 seeds
    \tViet Combo Vietnamese x Vietanamese Black

    Offspring of this cross has produced a range of outcomes from the trippiest to soaring highs while others can bring on paranoia, racing heart beat and hallucinations for those not used to it. Generally speaking Viet combo's most early finishing phenos are around 10+ weeks, which is the fastest pheno I've found to date. A large majority will finish around the 12 -14 weeks while the rare odd freak will try and push past the 15 week but what an awesome racing head high these have known to produce. A few to many hits from one of these wonders I found myself staggering around like a drunken sailor with no control over my body. Not for light weight smokers and recommended for only experienced growers if attempted indoors. For indoor grows I highly recommend flowering direct from seed and provide ample light to achieve maximum results. A good curing period is essential for a quality smoking session.
     
  8. #28 chicken, Jun 14, 2007
    this is just what ive read,, in many of my ''weed magazines'',,, but i understand what your saying!!!

    2 vets. who like you had a taste of that spiritual high ,,, and the best weed known to man is weed grown on the equaitor.... vietnam, loas e.t.c.///

    this fellow called it ''denalli'' and went back to nam. just to get some seeds for him and his vet. buddy..... theres a strain called .. willie nelson, [ simply because he liked it so much he bought the whole crop,,, but its a high potent asian strain] you are a lot like me looking for the ultimate ''spiritual'' strain,,, the uplifting high, of the greatest sativa strain known to man....research this strain,, '' willie nelson'' i believe this is what your looking for...... it just takes so long to produce, and is so lanky, and has a high tendancy to hermorfidite, on you ,that turns people off to it...

    hope i been a little of help.. but i do understand where your coming from my brother!!!!!! your looking for 1 certain high,, the high you used to know,,, i myself have not experienced it but id love to try some of it!!!!

    and good luck in your search!!!!:)

     
  9. #29 EP879, Jun 14, 2007
    Wrong. Your tolerance levels can always be changing and so it's hard to tell from personal experience. Tests on the other hand are concrete and is better proof. I know I got way higher off the mids I had when I started compared to the dank headies I'm getting now after having smoked for some time now. Does that mean those mids are stronger than the headies just because I got higher off them back then? Hell fuckin' no.
     
  10. #30 sneakers, Jun 14, 2007


    You are allowed to leave links, please do or else send me a pm with the link. I would sure appreciate it.




    Thanks a lot. I was beginning to think that stuff was sooo good that I hallucinated the entire thing. Do you know how long ago it was when these vets went back to nam looking for the seeds?

    Apparently they had smoked it while there in the late 60s and early 70s. Anyone who never experienced it just don't seem to understand and cant seem to get past the reports that say that all of the MJ from then was extremely weak. I am now starting to see that those who actually experienced the MJ from those days don't always agree with the tests and reports of today.




    Out of curiosity, when did you start?
    You just don't seem to understand. For me the true tests is experiencing it. If I get a better buzz from 1 product than another, it is best, regardless of any "concrete proof" someone else has given to you to read. I also remember reports (concrete proof) of people waking up in jail after smoking a joint and killing their friends and didn't remember anything about it. I heard that in 1969. It was bogus. Don't believe everything you hear.

    From what I remember, even after smoking for 5-10 years the stuff was extremely good. Never any thoughts of resistance breaks which is very commonplace today with people who have only been smoking for only a short while.

    Hopefully I will get a link to a place I can find these seeds. I would love to have some of this "weaker, inferior" MJ that gets me more stoned.
     
  11. #31 amodelninja, Jun 15, 2007
    I showed my good friend's mother some of my weed (headies) and she said it was better than anything she ever used to smoke; and she used to be a major druggie.
    THC is the same molecule today as it was in 1950, or in 1600, the THC in the marijuana from the 60s and 70s is the exact same THC that is in the weed of today. Trichomes are what contain THC as well as other psychoactive cannabinoids; Trichome levels are definitely higher right now than they were in the 60s and 70s, this is for a few reasons: advanced growing techniques as well as advanced lighting techniques allow growers to produce the maximum trichome growth response, growing much more "crystally" weed than could ever be produced by natural sunlight. The potency is determined by the % of plant weight in THC, which could only be determined by comparing two specimens of weed (one from the 60s and one from now).
    Also, weed in the 60s and 70s was generally shipped in from Central or South America; these shipping methods are very detrimental to the quality of weed, because the weed had to be packed reasonably tightly, and the excessive moving of travel would've caused a large amount of the trichomes to be damaged and to fall off (probably leaving a nice pile of keef and the bottom of each kilo). The best weed in America is home grown and often never travels outside the state its grown in.
    THC levels are an accurate indicator of potency because THC is hte most abundant cannabinoid. Other cannabinoids do play a large role in the high, but it is VERY unlikely that a marijuana plant could have high levels of other cannabinoids and have low levels of THC. Also, the chemicals in marijuana that get you high have been isolated, so potency can only be affected by these cannabinoid levels.

    You keep telling us that you smoked leaves, which doesn't lend much evidence to there being great weed in the 60s. Leaves have very little trichomes or THC concentration compared to buds; there is no way that you could've gotten higher on a bunch of fan leaves from the 60s than on the crystal-caked buds of today. The Mexicans grew their weed very improperly as weed became popular, however American smugglers that coordinated with the Mexicans instructed them in growing good buds; so eventually the Mexicans learned the get rid of the males except for breeding. The Mexicans also grew their weed on a thousand acre scale; I read that at one point the largest grow operation employed 3,000 people and shipped out hundreds of tons. This large of an operation means there would be little attention to quality control.

    The trichomes are what get you high, almost exclusively. There is probably a reasonable amount of THC sap in the plant material, but what actually gets you really high are the trichomes. Try smoking hash, which is much more pure than weed and is made out of trichomes. Properly made, uncut hash will get you much higher than weed can but in smaller hits, and hash is made from trichomes; this should be proof enough for you that trichomes are responsible for the high.
     
  12. #32 sneakers, Jun 15, 2007
    You showed your friend's mother?

    I agree that the MJ today looks 100 times better than it did then. If looks are what get you high then I agree with you but it isn't the looks that do the trick. I am still asking people who have actual experience, not heresey.

    Are the tests the same today as they were then?
    Surely technology that has effected everything else on this planet has also had an influence over the testing procedures of everything including THC levels. At some point the testers would need a sample of today's goods along with those from long ago to test side by side using the same test. Where did the sample from long ago come from?
    Who did the tests?
    What test did they use?

    The one thing that most of us know that visit this forum is that most of the things (tests etc.) surrounding MJ isn't right, especially if the government is involved. To date I have never seen anyone able to tell me what test has been used and who conducted the test. What everyone talks about is usually a report they have heard from some unknown person. The most reliable place I have ever heard these reports are on the news. Do you really think that is a solid source?

    The test used and the tester need to be revealed to bring any form of credibility to the results.

    If we are to believe all of the reports we hear then there were many reports of things like a guy waking up in jail having been charged with murder for killing all of his friends. This man remembered nothing about it because he had smoked a joint. Reports like this were endless during those days. Try and find an old movie called "Reefer Madness". It is full of such tails like this, all from "reports" and all supposedly true.

    Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is that now what we see are hybrids, crosses between 2 different pure strains. Does this also cause a loss in potency?

    All of the weed I remember from the 60s and early 70s came from mexico. It wasn't until the mid to late 70s when we first saw something called Columbian Redbud. This was shortly after all of the mexican weed wasn't good anymore. It was in the mid 70s when the quality of mexican weed went from good to absolutely nothing. It was shortly after that we started seeing many more "named" strains. Before then the only strains ever heard of were Acapulco Gold and Vietnamese Black.

    Read one of the replies in this thread about some vets from the vietnam war and their memory of weed from those days. It was talking about one specific strain and that particular strain, while it was excellent and better than the rest, it wasn't just a whole lot better. We also need to consider the fact that back then, we didn't seem to build a resistance in the way we do today. Perhaps this is a key to why it seemed so much better then.

    Were the tests performed on like samples or were some of the tests performed on homegrown which was shipped properly vs. brick weed shipped and damaged?

    They should have been and if not then the test was faulty. To do a true comparison the test samples need to at least be handled in the same way. I understand that what I smoked in those days had been shipped and damaged and that alone makes me question even more the reliability of the tests used. I am not real sure that THC was all that was getting us high.

    I still question where this information comes from and how reliable it is. I understand that may be the case today and that THC is the main factor to consider in what we smoke today but that still says nothing about yesterday. I am not real sure that the weed then may not have had something else in it's chemical makeup than THC.

    What are these chemicals? Have you actually seen a list of them? Where did this list come from, who performed the test etc. I am not willing to believe something blindly especially when all I see is someone that I don't know (that has no personal experience on the issue) making claims from unknown sources and I have personal experience that disputes the claims made.

    Again this adds credibility to the claims I am making. If the leaves and broken up buds (shake) and probably male plants also thrown in (we did find occasional male flowers) gave us a high that was even comparable to todays buds then there is something to what I am saying.

    The smugglers were not growers. How could they have instructed the mexicans how to grow?

    I will say this again. In the mid to late 70s the quality of mexican weed dropped to something to be considered horrible. It never came back. Even today the weed I see from Mexico is called dirt weed. It is ground up about as fine as dirt or dust and doesn't get you high. Perhaps the smugglers did teach them how to grow. Perhaps that is why the quality failed. Regardless of who taught them what, mexican weed failed then and has not returned since then. It was at that time we started to see the more costly MJ arrive on the market, usually all buds. In the mid to late 70s there was a huge change in mexican weed and it was for the worse. It was strange because it seemed to happen like overnight. We even heard rumors then about what had happened to the weed in Mexico and it did deal with genetics. This would be good stuff for another thread.

    Regardless, mexican weed never improved after that unless those growers are now growing strains like American homegrown and marketing it differently than they did back then.

    Almost exclusively?
    What else gets you high?
    Where did you get your information and who did the tests?

    Do you even know or is this just some more of the stuff you have read?

    We used to get hash all the time. It was much more available then than it is now. At one point we were getting Lebanese Blond Hash that still had the Lebanese government stamp on it. It was some good stuff. Our MJ in those days while not quite as good as hash, it was comparable. Alot more comparable than what we see today.

    I am not trying to say that you are inferior or anything personal about you. Please dont take it so personal. I am sure you have read all of these reports and they do sound good. My experience tells me they are false. Friends of mine that are my age and smoked back then tend to agree with me. I have never met anyone who smoked weed in those days and still smokes today that will make the claim that todays weed is better as far as the high is concerned. Sure it taste alot better, the high is good, different strains can get you a different high but there was something about the MJ in those days that I dont believe is being told in all of these reports. My experience tells me different than does those reports as does the experience of others that I know.

    To date, even in this thread, there has been noone with personal experience ever tell me that todays weed is better. The only place I hear that is in reports like on the news and from people who have no personal experience on this issue.

    Considering all of the other bullshit that surrounds MJ and most of it coming from the government, I am very cautious about believing something that I just hear from someone I don't know. Telling us even who did the test would help.
     
  13. #33 amodelninja, Jun 15, 2007
    Umm weed that looks better will get you higher. It's very simple to understand, cannabis plants produce crystals in response to environmental factors, the purpose of crystals are to protect the plant; from UV rays, from insects and from the environment. This lipid 'sap' (which appears as crystals) contains THC as well as various other cannabinoids. THC is concentrated almost entirely in these crystals (and a small amount actually inside of the buds).

    The simple truth is: weed that looks great gets you higher than weed that doesn't look great because it has more crystals; the crystals get you high. It's so easy a second grader could understand.
    It's impossible for us to test the weed you smoked in the past for levels, because no weed from the 60s and 70s still exists (fortunately for your argument). However, simple logic could make any person understand how weed might be better today.
    You want scientific proof, but you know that it's impossible to get; great for you.
    You want first hand experiences, but I would consider you naive to make a judgment based on others' past experiences, or even YOUR past experience; you truly should trust logic over your past experiences, because logic goes completely against what you are saying. It would be naive for me to make serious judgments based on my past experience as opposed to taking an objective view to the problem.
    No, there is no such thing as a "pure" strain, cannabis was growing and breeding extensively before man kind even considered cultivating it. Cultivation has allowed man to choose the genetically superior plants for breeding, allowing for a better product in the end, there was never any pure strain, because cannabis grown outdoors en masse could be pollenated by other cannabis plants 500 miles away, producing completely variable seeds. When most people cultivate pot for seeds (in modern times), they choose the best female and male specimens in order to provide the highest chance of producing offspring with positive traits. Back in the 60s and 70s, the pot you smoked was being cultivated on such a large scale (and outdoors, where it is IMPOSSIBLE to control pollenation) that breeding for selective traits was never practiced and was impossible. Weed will constantly get better over time if growers continue to breed for selective traits.

    Okay, I originally said "Also, wee din the 60s and 70s was generally shipped in from CEntral or South America;", and by Central America I meant Mexico (The largest Central American country...)

    This may very well be the answer. A lower built up tolerance would allow you to get higher on less THC. However, it has been widely suggested that marijuana users actually build up a "reverse tolerance", where some who smokes frequently is able to get higher than someone who smokes infrequently due to built up THC plasma levels over time. This would also be a reason why you might've gotten higher in the 60s or 70s, because you were smoking a lot of weed thus exhibiting the reverse tolerance effect.

    All the cannabinoids in marijuana have been isolated and identified by numerous research groups internationally. Nearly every modernized country has conducted research into the pharmaceutical and pharmocokinetic properties of marijuana and its cannabinoids, isolating the cannabinoids in order to determine which ones may have benefits. Of course weed has other chemicals than THC, it has many different cannabinoids that are responsible for the high but THC is the most heavily abundant one.
    I am not going to waste my time looking up answers for you. What I am saying is based on my extensive knowledge of biology, pharmacology, marijuana and drug culture. As an educated person looking to impart knowledge for the better of the world, I would not be making statements that I had doubts about.

    Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time doing research for you. The amount of research that has been done of psychoactive chemicals (such as all the ones in marijuana) is extensive. Marijuana has been extensively researched by pharmaceutical companies and ethnobotanists the world over. It has been dissected to a fault in search for some pharmaceutical benefit (that would enable the pharmaceutical companies to profit, giving them the incentive to do an expert job). So, I have this question for you: what parts of marijuana BESIDES the identified cannabinoids can get you high? (none)

    Other than the trichomes, the small levels of THC actually present inside the bud get you high. That's it. Also, what do you know that you haven't read? Maybe I read this in a biology text book, but who knows? Maybe the biology text book was lying. You can question everything I say and the truth is I don't care at all because I don't think you're worth arguing with. Your writing is sloppy, your grammar often incorrect; word choice and placement is poor. You're obviously the kind of person that will deny my argument despite the fact that I give you cold hard logic. I'm not trying to explain this to you to win an argument, I'm trying to explain this to you so that you can make good use of the knowledge I am imparting, and so that you will not unknowingly pass incorrect knowledge on to others.
    How the fuck would you know if the smugglers knew how to grow or not? You based that assumption simply on the title that I gave (smugglers). You really wouldn't know shit. You also have no idea where the weed you got came from, unless you knew the guy who was shipping tons in a boat or plane. Colombian weed was only around for a very short time and was sub par in quality. A dealer probably gave you some weed and called it "Columbian Red Bud" because he knew that would encourage you to buy it (much like weed is given names these days). The biggest marijuana exporting cartel in the 60s and 70s was the Caro-Quintero cartel, who grew shitty weed in Mexico up until the point that Michael Hooks coordinated with them to ship their weed by plane load, eventually building a 27 plane fleet that moved tons. Michael Hooks knew how to grow sensi and rebuilt the Mexican growing operation by teaching them how to grow effectively.

    See, your argument lacks logos. Your personal experience cannot be accepted as fact, neither can mine. You ask for personal experiences, but you are extremely naive (remarkable for someone your age) to believe that personal experiences could be at all indicative of the truth.
    You are obviously in search of the answer you've already decided on, the answer that something special made weed better back in the days; either that or like I said, you are extremely naive.
    I'm an objective party, and I am not willing to depend solely on personal accounts. Everything you have said in this thread has been influenced by the fact that you believe there used to be something special about weed that made you higher, this makes your judgment flawed because you have already decided on your answer: that weed used to be better.
    I really don't care if it used to be better or if I can change your mind. I have laid out a logical path that makes sense and is easy to follow; however, you choose to deny my argument because of your unwillingness to accept widely acknowledged scientific literature (of which you've obviously never read) on cannabis.

    I would guess that your reason for experiencing a more powerful high in your younger days would be due to tolerance issues. Reverse tolerance would explain your situation perfectly; you smoked weed more often in your younger days, keeping the THC levels in your blood plasma higher over a longer period of time, generating a more powerful high than if you smoked on rare occasions.

    Edit: I realize I was very cold in writing some of this and that it could be interpreted as rude or insulting. I'm sorry, I appreciate and respect your skepticism and fully realize why you might be skeptical of what someone on a grasscity.com forum is saying.
     
  14. #34 Canabudz, Jun 15, 2007
  15. #35 StonedWallKid, Jun 15, 2007
    sneakers... maybe the difference is that you were 14 when you smoked this black nam or whatever. Not to mention your setting was pretty good. Chillin in the club house with a few friends under a black light doin somthing your not supposed to do and knowing your seconds away from being caught... Its just my theory but I'll bet that made it 100x better than its going to be sitting at home at 55 after smoking for 40 years and building a HUGE tolerance.. Not to mention your used to being high.. so its not so trippy as it was when we were kids.
     
  16. #36 sneakers, Jun 15, 2007
    I am not going to waste my time with another long response. That would do absolutely no good. All that would happen is you would reply with another long response and we would both still have the same thoughts as before. This has been taken to a personal level, something I will not stoop to. Most of what you said, I could argue but I dont have the time or the desire to continue in this fruitless effort. My lack of response is in no way meant to say that I agree with what you have said.

    BTW: Mexica is in North America LOL

    If there is anyone who has actual experience or someone who can backup the claims they make as scientific evidence with something other than their own words or some website they read or something they heard from a friend, I would love to hear about it.

    p.s. I have sure gotten blazed good on weed that didn't look good in the past and I have also smoked weed that looked great and barely got a buzz.
     
  17. #37 sneakers, Jun 15, 2007
    Perhaps so. The deal is that even after having smoked for maybe 10 years, I was still getting the good buzz. There was never any need for a tolerance break. True that experiences as a teenager are great but I truly feel like something bad happened to MJ somewhere between the mid to late 70s. It was like in a years time all of the mexican stuff we had been getting turned bad and since then all that has been anywhere near decent has always had a name and a price tag attached.

    Thanks
     
  18. #38 amodelninja, Jun 15, 2007
    You and I both know that the weed you used to smoke was grown out doors, and more than likely in a massive plantation by inexperienced growers. You and I both know that indoor growing has allowed man to replicate the effects that cause crystal production, but at a much more intense level than natural growing allows. Breeding over the past 40 years has allowed small indoor growers (as well as large-scale indoor operations) to breed plants selectively based on traits, improving the genetics of pot plants.

    These are all pieces of information that I hope you can accept as true, because they don't take a lot of faith to accept. Based on these few facts, it can easily be inferred that modern indoor weed could be better than the weed you used to smoke (especially if you were smoking fan leaves), however you still seem to think that there is some "special" element to the weed that you used to smoke that science, as well as the current marijuana industry has not accounted for? Is the statement I just made correct or not? Because if you truly believe that there is some chemical in marijuana that used to get you higher in the old days, where did this chemical go? What is it and how was it permanently erased from cannabis genetics?

    The more crystals a bud has, the higher it will get you. The crystals are what get you high, that's why they make hash out of crystals. If you were smoking fan leaves and male leaves you were probably barely getting high at all. It seems unreasonable that you could've been smoking weed that was better than the bombs that are around today.
     
  19. #39 sneakers, Jun 15, 2007
    I question what happened to MJ that the quality dropped from excellent to nothing in a very short time and then a year later all that was available was "named brand" stuff. I don't have the answers. I am looking for those answers.

    I sure didn't mean to get into a debate on this subject, just looking for reasonable answers that can be backed up and to date, that hasn't been provided by anyone that I know of. Without a source, words typed into this forum have no more credibility than my own experiences, except to myself. It is like seeing this reported on the news without some form of backup. I keep hearing of these reports but noone can actually say who conducted the test or where these so called reports even came from. Im sorry but if I were to believe in unsubstantiated stuff then you could justify calling me naive.
     
  20. #40 rumandromanism, Jun 16, 2007

    Most people today don't realize how potent the weed is. They'll smoke a gram or more in a sitting, and put 3-4 grams in a blunt. However, I understood quite early in my smoking experience about limiting my smoking habits. I can get high off of about a tenth of a gram, and usually put less than half a gram in a blunt that lasts me a couple of settings. I've never taken a tolerance break and I've never built up a resistance to weed.

    It seems like people smoked a lot of weed per session in past decades, but since the marijuana wasn't as potent, tolerance was hard to build up. This is very different today, and if you want to be able to enjoy headies for a long time, it is necessary to ration.
     
Page 2 of 6

Share This Page