It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Krazysh0t
A stressed plant produces more THC. The law of averages means more bad growers, more stressed plants and therefore much stronger weed.
Where did you get this from?!
Have you seen the grow rooms of today? I would say they are far from being stressed.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Was Marijuana Really Less Potent in the 1960s?
This is a claim that I see popping up over and over again on these boards and for the longest time I couldn't properly refute it even though I didn't fully believe it. My go to response has always been that yes, top end strains ARE getting better, but that doesn't necessarily mean that average weed is getting better. I also say that likely average weed has remained about the same. Top end strains cost more money. When you buy one, you know because you spent more money on it. There is no deception here. A seller isn't going to trick you into buying a top end strain for cheaper because he paid more money for it as well. What economic sense would it make to do that? If pot potency is increasing, it isn't as dramatic as fearmongers make it out to be.
So, I was perusing the internet and found this article that pretty much agrees with me above.
For years, people have talked about increasing marijuana potency. The idea that pot is getting stronger—much stronger than the stuff that got passed around at Woodstock, for instance—is treated like conventional wisdom these days. Maybe it shouldn't be.
Damn right it shouldn't. Where is the research to corroborate this claim? Well here is old research.
The federal government has been testing marijuana potency for more than 40 years, and has long acknowledged the limitations to its methodologies. Along with some of the issues with gas chromatography—which it was still using at least as recently as 2008—the National Institute on Drug Abuse potency testing has always depended on what researchers have been able to get their hands on. Since 1972, tens of thousands of test samples for the Potency Monitoring Program have come from law enforcement seizures, which have varied dramatically in scope and type. A drop in THC concentration in the early 1980s, for instance, was attributed to the fact that most of the marijuana researchers analyzed came from weaker domestic crops.
In National Institute on Drug Abuse studies over the past several decades, the age of samples has varied from a few weeks old to a few years old—and researchers made no attempt to compensate for the loss of THC during prolonged storage, according to a 1984 paper. They also get different results when taking into account how the potency of a particularly large seizure could skew the overall sample. For example, measured one way, researchers found what looked like a continuous and significant increase in potency in the late 1970s. But normalizing those findings showed there was "an increase up to 1977 with slight decline in 1978 and a significant decline in 1979," according to a 1984 paper in the Journal of Forensic Science.
More recently, researchers found a THC concentration that "gradually increase[d]" from 1993 to 2008, according to a 2010 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences. And despite testing limitations, researchers have always maintained potency is likely trending upward. But they've also always been upfront about the limitations to their findings: "The change in cannabis potency over the past 40 years has been the subject of much debate and controversy... The [Potency Monitoring] program has strived to answer this cannabis potency question, while realizing that the data collected in this and other programs have some scientific and statistical shortcomings."
Ultimately, researchers have found a "large variation within categories and over time," they wrote. That's in part because sample sizes have fluctuated. (In the 1970s, researchers assessed anywhere from three to 18 seizures a year. In 2000, they analyzed more than 1,000 seizures.)
In other words, it's difficult if not impossible to classify average potency in a way that can be tracked meaningfully over time. So while there's almost certainly more super-strong pot available today—if only by the fact that it's now legal to buy in multiple states—it doesn't mean that all marijuana is ultra-potent today, which is how the narrative about potency is often framed. There's also a point at which most strains can't get much stronger. "Anyone getting a reading over 25, it's really hard to do," said Murray of CannLabs. "And then it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to quote-unquote get higher. There's a lot of things that go into the plant—over 500 constituents of the plant that play into this."
So possibly a small increase over time.
Federal researchers, too, have characterized marijuana strains with THC concentrations above around 15 percent as unusual. "The question over the increase in potency of cannabis is complex and has evoked many opinions," researchers at the University of Mississippi wrote in a National Institute on Drug Abuse analysis of marijuana potency between 1993 and 2008. "It is however clear that cannabis has changed during the past four decades. It is now possible to mass produce plants with potencies inconceivable when concerted monitoring efforts started 40 years ago."
Obviously, the question isn't fully answered yet, but anyone fearing pot because they are afraid they may be accidentally sold some super strain of marijuana is fooling themselves. You'd know before even paying for it that you were getting some really good stuff. The article makes mention of mislabeled labels, but again, the process to make super strains is VERY involved and costs more money. It makes economic sense that a seller would have these strains properly marked just for the sole fact that he has to know which ones he has to sell at a higher cost.
Not surprisingly another prohibitionist claim turns out to be baseless rhetoric.
originally posted by: darkbake
This is a good point that I never thought of before. I wonder how good the stuff sold in medical marijuana dispensaries or legal pot stores can get.
Out on the street, you can get normal stuff, but sometimes people sell "medical" for a premium... I wonder if that is a lot better than in the 70's, or just a bit better or what. I never smoked dope in the 70's so I don't know how strong (or weak) it was back then.
I never thought of questioning the line of thinking that "weed is getting stronger" before. People make it sound like weed in the 70's got you about as high as slapping yourself across the face once or twice would, or maybe holding your breath for 60 seconds before a nice exhale.
But judging from the music in the 70's, they had some pretty nice highs.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace
I have yet to meet a single person who has "freaked out" on marijuana regardless of the potency and let's say I've met quite a few people who use.
local and imported sensi