1. Win a Personalized Grasscity Stoner Kit! Subscribe to our Youtube for a chance to WIN!
    Dismiss Notice

THC level

Discussion in 'Seasoned Tokers' started by THC101, May 20, 2004.

  1. Ive thought about this numerous times lately, about the THC level of weed, since the 60's it has supposedly gone from around 5% to 23%, thats crazy... think of how much MORE potent its going to get over the years..

    wat do u think that will do? It will definatly make weed more mental addictive, im not shure about physically.

    post your thoughts on this subject
  2. Interesting post.

    I'd say that the genetics probably couldn't get all that much better than they are now. However, thats probably the same thing the people in the 60's said, and look at the stuff we're smoking now.

    What do I think would happen if they got into levels like 50% or something like that? I know I sure as hell would have a lot more fun. :D
  3. I thought the "marijuana is stronger now" was a myth. *shrug*

    But it would make sense, considering back then they didnt have all the high tech grow rooms we have now.
  4. i thought even good bud has only 20%.. so most normal weed is prolly 10-15..
  5. Just think about in the future, when we have crazy growing technology. It would be like 1 hit shit, people wouldnt even smoke joints anymore cuz it would be too much. Smoke like a gram between 10 people and everyone would get really high haha. That would be the shit.
  6. In labs they've gotten 33% thc.
    In the 60s the thc % was probably the same as it is today but the samples they're using for these results have been sitting around for 40 years in unknown conditions. So the thc % of that weed is bound to have dropped over time.
  7. i read that the weed from the 60s was not stored properly in bags and wasnt tested for thc immedietly which made the weed really old and weak
    today people vacuum pack it and know how to keep it strong longer then before and everything
  8. they could be testing different strains
    the 60s weed could be dirt schwag
    and the today weed could be blueberry nug or something good

  9. That would suck. I'd perfer smoking more to get a nice high than smoking less and being fucked. i want to be able to sit over a nice dinner with friends, smoke and chat the entire time.
  10. They tested dirt Mexican weed.. today if cops found weed that was smuggled from Canada.. or anywhere.. and see high levels they would think that it's domestic weed. the problem with prohibition is that no one can ever tell where the weed comes from. "controlled" substances my ass!!
  11. All my old hippy friends swear weed was better back in the 60's.... they always say that what we get now isnt as good as their old thai stick.

  12. yeah one hit shit wood ruin the fun of smoking for me...i actually like smoking, not just getting high
  13. ya that its stronger now than the 60's is sketchy

    ..it is stronger because of advanced growing techniques and everything ....but its not like ALL bud in the 60's was 1-3% THC or whatever tehy try and tell everybody ..just now adays bud is alot better than MOST of the bud in the 60's or the ones tehy tested ....or atleast i think...

  14. ya same lol, i love the act of smoking waaay to much ...after all in my mind smoking bud is 1/2 the fun or atleast 1/4th ...or 1/8th ...i dunno i was never good at math :D
  15. Possible ways this study could have gone wrong:

    1) "Average": Averages get screwed up if there are lots of varying potencies you're measuring. Maybe the sampling in the 60's was 75% dirt weed and 25% amazing one-hit shit. That would make the average appear low, even if the 25% was much MORE potent than today's.

    2) Where did they get the weed from? If you arrest a lot of poorer people, you'll tend to find more shwag. Maybe the samples taken from the modern day are skewed because many more drug busts are happening in (richer) suburbia than I imagine they did in the 60's.

    3) The age-old storage problem: If the 60's weed was not properly stored before testing, the THC content of course would decrease. This seems to be a pretty straightforward explanation, but might not be the whole story.

    4) What were the respective numbers of samples in each time? Maybe the 60's potency tests only used 50 samples, and the modern tests use 500 samples. Again, could be poor sampling.

    This kind of test-of-an-object-through-time is very very difficult for obtaining accurate results. For a good experiment, you have to neutralize (ideally) all but one external influence. The difference between one study conducted in the 60's on one group of testing materials and one conducted over forty years later on another group of materials IS AFFECTED by more external influences than the potency alone.

    The vast probability is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove this theory about increased potency. So, instead of conjecturing that increased potency equals increased risk of anything, people should measure the ACTUAL effects of the plant today. Comparing it to the 60's is interesting, but should not be confused with anything resembling scientific fact (without a great deal of proof, of course, that ALL external influences were accounted for).

    Summary: There may be SOME truth to the potency claim, but it's impossible to prove it.
  16. there have been lots of tests here in Holland. The results all showed that THC has gone up a lot of %.

    I don't believe much in the state propaganda > but on this one I've got the feeling they're right.

    My personal experience > last 10 years the marihuana has changed a lot... Indeed, mainly because of better growing techniques and fucking around with the genetics...

Grasscity Deals Near You


Share This Page