Why do people use the fact that weed is more potent as an arguement against it? I've always wondered, surely higher the potency the less you have to smoke to better for your lungs?
Well, it's not really more potent, it's just that top potency bud is more plentiful now than in past decades. The whole 'marijuana today is so much stronger than in past days' meme is just Government propaganda to scare parents, voters, teachers, etc. Because of the lingering and erroneous stigma that it's a potentially dangerous drug this tool has been used for decades as a scare tactic. In the 80's they said the same thing when the 'War on Drugs' started.
They are trying to get across that the more potent it is, the more harmful it is for your body... Which is obviously bull shit..
Hey, if people were willing to vote for a corrupt Chicago politician with zero experience ever running anything then they are willing to believe anything.
Our new road safety minister was exposed for not paying for 43 traffic offenses the other day. Surely no one knows more about the road laws than him.
Yeah our new Treasury Secretary, the dude in charge of collecting all Federal taxes, knowingly evaded paying a lot of taxes...and got a walk. A private citizen would be in jail. There is a reason people refer to the voting base in many countries as 'sheeple'.
In a way i do agree with them. It's been proven that at least one cannabinoid contains antipsychotic properties. Now when weed is made to be more potent and contain a higher THC level, it out numbers the amount of other cannabinoids making their percentage less and even sometimes eliminates them. Weed with extreme amounts of THC could very well be more unhealthy than weed with even amounts of cannabinoids. I'm not saying that it's definitely worst for you, but there's always a chance. I don't see the logic in removing a cannabinoid which is antipsychotic and replacing it with higher amounts of another which isn't. Sure it gets you higher quicker and longer. But in relation to alcohol, if i drink a bottle of vodka straight down i will be hammered....I think you know where i'm going with this...
I think there is probably a lot more dank available than there was back in the day but this only reduces the one actual harmful aspect of weed - theres less smoke to inhale to get the same high. seriously!
Growers should switch to organic methods. That's what I'm attempting this year but its my first time growing. I think there would be enough demand for organic that people would pay 10% more for it. Same concept as organic produce and theres a lot of demand for that these days. But as far as the cannabinoid argument, I think you just have to judge it by the high. If it makes you mellow smoke it up. If it makes you paranoid then mix it with mellower stuff.
I've read about that study conducted which showed weed in the 1970's was less potent than current greens... Apparently they took a sample of mexican schwag from the 70's which was improperly stored and severely degraded... and compared it to a current fresh raid of higher quality.... sounds a bit biased to me don't you think? it is about the availability plus isn't the rumor that G13, created by the government in the 1970's had a 28% THC content? Look around.... find yourself another bud with that kind of potency and we can talk.... peace, hippy
Yeah i always keep my grows natural. The thing is with the cannabinoids, it actually has been proven. These strains that contain Huge amounts of THC have a lack of the other cannabinoids. There is supposed to be around 66. But when made more potent and the THC level is raised it can cut that number by 90%. CBD is the main other cannabinoid. And is the one with antipsychotic properties. Anyway i'm repeating myself now.
The whole 'G13' myth is just that; a myth. There was never any such strain. Yes there is a strain named after the mythical plant. No it's not some Government created super cannabis.
Well I stand corrected! thanks for clearing that up for me... I'm not a fan of proliferating rumors... cheers... however it doesn't change the other things I stated....the "argument" that pot is more potent now than it was back in the 70's is another untrue scare tactic... peace, hippy
What about my post aye? Do you agree with that? I was expecting to be corrected Although i know my statement is fact.
I am not sure it's fact, but I don't completely disagree with it. I like a nice balance of cannabioids which is why most of the time I prefer Indicas over Sativas.