Is Cannabis Potency Really Increasing?

[Skip]

Here's a report from NIDA with detailed analysis of Delta-9 THC content from every sample tested, including everything from swag to the best hashish, domestic and imported. It even details the amount of CBC, CBD, CBN found in each sample.

This report says the government is wrong in suggesting that potency has been increasing because they included hashish in the results for marijuana.

But I do see that hash potency seemed to top out in 2006 (everyone making bubble hash then, I bet), then start to decline in the last couple of years.

So what do you think? Is marijuana getting stronger or are we just smoking less crap than before?

 

[Pops]

Although the government has claimed for many years that pot is getting stronger, you basically have to look at what they are testing. In the 60's and 70's, they had only brickweed to test. This was mixed male and fertilized female plants that had bud,stem,seeds and fans all chopped up and mixed together(just like the Government grown crap). It was sure to show low potency.

Today, most domestically grown weed is sinsimilla, which is naturally going to register higher than brickweed. The government has been comparing apple to oranges for many years.

Interesting to note that CBN levels have been dropping over the years, indicating that the pot they are testing is getting fresher. I would love to find out where they found the 4%+ CBD samples of ditchweed. That would make great meds for those needing CBD.

 

[Skip]

Looks like the THC content of sinsemilla topped out around 1999 and has been dropping since... Amazing how they can make these stats say what they want them too, even though their conclusions are false.

 

[Pops]

Figures don't lie, but liars use(and misuse) figures!

 

[TheBudFather]

Fear Tactics...again!

 

[CheifnBud2]

In the 60's and 70's there was pure sativa, sometimes not left till full maturity, dried in the sun(thc degrader), and then pounded into bricks and left to sit for anywhere between 1 day and 1 year. (thc degrader).

By the time it made its way through 5 dealers and into the hands of the tester, the original product had lost a significant portion of its thc percentage.

On the other hand.
Todays medicinal quality weed is grown to perfection, dried well, not abused and cured in jars.

It has nearly 100% of the thc on the original plant intact.

Thats my theory.

 

[Skip]

Anyone who got to sample Nepalese Finger Hash, Temple Balls, or top class Afghani back in the ol' daze, knows that all these claims are lies.

Hell we were doin' some fine honey oil back in the 70s that is hard to beat today.

When the GI's brought back those Thai sticks, a new kinda high was reached. The Thais showed great respect for their product and those beautiful, rainbow colored buds sticky with resin made everything from south of the border, pale.

Then a bit later in the 70s California sensi and super sweet Hawaiian showed what American growers could do. All they did was cross a few strains and feed them well and harvest and cure with care and THC content was maximized.

Since then most differences are simply due to genetics, timing of harvest, attention to grow and which part of the plant you're actually smoking. It was nice for the government to try to sort the parts for us in that report.

 

[eglider]

In the way back a buddy sent a bunch of hash from Viet-nam that was so strong that everyone who smoked it hallucinated. It was so good that a few straight up passed on it, said it was too much. I suffered thru. .
I put up A U.N. "paper" that said Brit Pot was stronger than U.S.. They probably wrote that crap in case Brit Pols. start getting funny ideas about legalizing.

I could be wrong about looking at govt. funded studies on Pot the same way I look at tobacco studies funded by Philip Morris. I'll admit I could be a victim of latent paranoia.
To be fair, lets look at the govt.s past history of information on the subject.

Wait! Hold up! Where you guys going? ...This is SCIENCE!!!

 

[VanXant]

I guess we are finally acknowledging that 40 years of small-scale breeding has not improved drug cannabis, from a genetic perspective.

So...why do we support hack seedmaking via small populations?

Small scale hack jobs erode the drug genepool. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

Are we ready to acknowledge THAT yet?