Screw the good ol' day's....

kona gold

kona gold

Well-Known Member
I cant believe some of the pure crap i read on some threads.....such as this one!!!!! All i can say....again and again....is sorry if you never smoked weed prior to 2000! Your lack of knowledge is not your fault....you are the brainwashed product of the BC bud era!!! Thats why todays weed must have bag appeal as no. 1 priority! Now you people claiming to grow up in '70's and the smoke was poor to you....that might just be cause you didnt know and good connections back then...and were subjected to brickweed! There was plenty of super chronic,kind bud, in the day, as well as in my time of 80's till present!!! Why do people think "high times" is some kinda holy grail of pot quality? Those pictures arent a correct representation,some are, of the best quality buds back then! That mag was still young back then and no one sent pictures in like today, we were tooooo paranoid to get busted....so most super chronic never showed up in high times!!!!! Now about sativas....the are not all scraggy fluffy crystaless buds....most i've worked with in my time were quick budding branchy crystally large budded strains! Haze.....that stain is below average....why does everyone compare sativa to haze!!!!????!!! There were tons of better sativas then! And kush...that was just an average strain back in the 80's and 90's...where do you think todays strains came from anyway!!!!????!!! Duh!! Now when i came to Hawai'i in early 90's....the quality of weed from all old shool strains(sativa and indica), would crush this shit today by a huge margin!!!! Powerful, exotic flavors and highs that gripped you for 3-5 hours....some even longer!!!! Buds that i truly cant describe in words as the flavors and experiences were not able to be associated in words! But not only in Hawai'i....Cali buds back then were just as chronic and unique, with a strong genetic pool!! Even the mex could be superb from time to time.....getting sacs with big brown spongy nugs w/no seeds that had a fruity chocolate smell and taste...to bright green golden buds that had exotic spicy flavors and super poweful happy highs!!!! Sorry but i grow and smoke the best today has to offer...and it is just mids, B , weed!!!! Even all the cup strains i've grown are just watered down versions of old bad genetics!!! But i will continue to search and breed for the quality i was used to. Funny how in the Seattle medical cup....the strains with the highest THC were the Panama Red, Williams Wonder, and Cactus(Dutch Treat x NL)! And these were not as strong as most stains back then....i wonder if they had the technology back then, if the THC would have been in the 30-40% on the elite strains?
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
SketchyGrower said:
Well, we came from monkeys and I would say we are for sure..... Better then them at everything.... we smell better to ;)
Click to expand...
Monkey's are a lot stronger than humans. A lot. Just sayin.

Aside from that, you're comparing millions of years of evolution to a few decades of selective breeding and suggesting things could have improved dramatically at a genetic level. I'm afraid this isn't the case. Other factors have played a larger role.
 
A

althor

Well-Known Member
kona gold said:
I cant believe some of the pure crap i read on some threads.....such as this one!!!!! All i can say....again and again....is sorry if you never smoked weed prior to 2000! Your lack of knowledge is not your fault....you are the brainwashed product of the BC bud era!!! Thats why todays weed must have bag appeal as no. 1 priority! Now you people claiming to grow up in '70's and the smoke was poor to you....that might just be cause you didnt know and good connections back then...and were subjected to brickweed! There was plenty of super chronic,kind bud, in the day, as well as in my time of 80's till present!!! Why do people think "high times" is some kinda holy grail of pot quality? Those pictures arent a correct representation,some are, of the best quality buds back then! That mag was still young back then and no one sent pictures in like today, we were tooooo paranoid to get busted....so most super chronic never showed up in high times!!!!! Now about sativas....the are not all scraggy fluffy crystaless buds....most i've worked with in my time were quick budding branchy crystally large budded strains! Haze.....that stain is below average....why does everyone compare sativa to haze!!!!????!!! There were tons of better sativas then! And kush...that was just an average strain back in the 80's and 90's...where do you think todays strains came from anyway!!!!????!!! Duh!! Now when i came to Hawai'i in early 90's....the quality of weed from all old shool strains(sativa and indica), would crush this shit today by a huge margin!!!! Powerful, exotic flavors and highs that gripped you for 3-5 hours....some even longer!!!! Buds that i truly cant describe in words as the flavors and experiences were not able to be associated in words! But not only in Hawai'i....Cali buds back then were just as chronic and unique, with a strong genetic pool!! Even the mex could be superb from time to time.....getting sacs with big brown spongy nugs w/no seeds that had a fruity chocolate smell and taste...to bright green golden buds that had exotic spicy flavors and super poweful happy highs!!!! Sorry but i grow and smoke the best today has to offer...and it is just mids, B , weed!!!! Even all the cup strains i've grown are just watered down versions of old bad genetics!!! But i will continue to search and breed for the quality i was used to. Funny how in the Seattle medical cup....the strains with the highest THC were the Panama Red, Williams Wonder, and Cactus(Dutch Treat x NL)! And these were not as strong as most stains back then....i wonder if they had the technology back then, if the THC would have been in the 30-40% on the elite strains?
Click to expand...

You skipped right over the 70's and jumped into the 80's.

80's had some very good, very good, buds. Big difference in the 70's and 80's. I am still looking for a few of the lost strains of the 80s.
 
Fatty R Buckle

Fatty R Buckle

Active Member
kona gold said:
I cant believe some of the pure crap i read on some threads.....such as this one!!!!! All i can say....again and again....is sorry if you never smoked weed prior to 2000! Your lack of knowledge is not your fault....you are the brainwashed product of the BC bud era!!! Thats why todays weed must have bag appeal as no. 1 priority! Now you people claiming to grow up in '70's and the smoke was poor to you....that might just be cause you didnt know and good connections back then...and were subjected to brickweed! There was plenty of super chronic,kind bud, in the day, as well as in my time of 80's till present!!! Why do people think "high times" is some kinda holy grail of pot quality? Those pictures arent a correct representation,some are, of the best quality buds back then! That mag was still young back then and no one sent pictures in like today, we were tooooo paranoid to get busted....so most super chronic never showed up in high times!!!!! Now about sativas....the are not all scraggy fluffy crystaless buds....most i've worked with in my time were quick budding branchy crystally large budded strains! Haze.....that stain is below average....why does everyone compare sativa to haze!!!!????!!! There were tons of better sativas then! And kush...that was just an average strain back in the 80's and 90's...where do you think todays strains came from anyway!!!!????!!! Duh!! Now when i came to Hawai'i in early 90's....the quality of weed from all old shool strains(sativa and indica), would crush this shit today by a huge margin!!!! Powerful, exotic flavors and highs that gripped you for 3-5 hours....some even longer!!!! Buds that i truly cant describe in words as the flavors and experiences were not able to be associated in words! But not only in Hawai'i....Cali buds back then were just as chronic and unique, with a strong genetic pool!! Even the mex could be superb from time to time.....getting sacs with big brown spongy nugs w/no seeds that had a fruity chocolate smell and taste...to bright green golden buds that had exotic spicy flavors and super poweful happy highs!!!! Sorry but i grow and smoke the best today has to offer...and it is just mids, B , weed!!!! Even all the cup strains i've grown are just watered down versions of old bad genetics!!! But i will continue to search and breed for the quality i was used to. Funny how in the Seattle medical cup....the strains with the highest THC were the Panama Red, Williams Wonder, and Cactus(Dutch Treat x NL)! And these were not as strong as most stains back then....i wonder if they had the technology back then, if the THC would have been in the 30-40% on the elite strains?
Click to expand...
So , your telling me in a nut shell you had stronger weed back in the day..???? And everything today is B mid's..????
Abusive og is tested at over 30% thc and its shwag to your spooky magical 70's weed..? Bullshit!!!!!! You sir dont smoke nor grow the best with a answer like that... Shanti who is a god in this biz and was around breeding and smoking at the time. Stated many times that the quality of weed is doing nothing but getting better..

http://youtu.be/KIHkSafj1Xw
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
i tend to agree with tip top toker on this one... first of all, about 90% of todays' genetics all come from these so called shit strains, so what does that tell you?? i don't buy into that monkey argument either, but that's just me..
i'm not saying the weed back then was better, but you have to remember none of it was grown indoors under proper conditions like what we have today.. now a days, people have complete sealed rooms, co2 enrichment, super hps blue enhanced bulbs, advanced nutes latest and greatest supplements to bring out the very best in the buds, grow tents, etc, etc, etc..
back in the 70's, that bud was grown out in mountains and fields with lil care.. seeds were planted in spring, and people would come back at harvest season and chop what had managed to make it that far.. males were common, seeded bud as well, not to mention things like drying and curing.. a gold is said to have gotten it's golden color from being cured out in the mexico sun.. today, we realize that exposure to light degrades thc.. imagine the post on riu where someone said that they're drying they're bud in the cali sun to give it that golden color?? they'd get laughed off of the boards..
then it comes down to packaging and transportation.. lil care was taken as they put keys of bud into anything that would hold it to get it to where ever it would eventually be sold.. today, i doubt most of us are 3 or 4 people away from the person who grew it, if that far, and those people take extreme care in the way that they package their buds as well..
i'd love to have some old skool gear and grow it under the premium conditions and compare it apples to apples to todays weed and see what's the dillio.. really the only way to do it..
Click to expand...
This.

First of all, the stuff grown outdoors for commercial sale in the 1970s wasn't EVER hand manicured. The "buds" weren't just buds, they were the entire tops of the plants. If you were lucky, the fan leaves would be stripped off, but not necessarily. And the plants were mostly seeded. So if you go by WEIGHT, and include stems, fan leaves, and seeds, then of course THC content would be quite a bit lower than the pure hand-trimmed buds of today. Cure was often suboptimal, and the stuff also was prone to degradation during long smuggling runs.

Second, I think many of today's smokers have never even seen pure landrace sativa plants. If you look at stuff like landrace Thai or other similar sativas, the buds themselves are really long and wispy not dense and nuggetty like the indicas and indica hybrids that everyone grows now. Franky, they aren't much to look at. But the high and especially taste are awesome. There is some correlation between appearance of crystals and potency. . .but there is no correlation between appearance and HIGH QUALITY, and the stuff that is grown outdoor in mountains with 5 month flowering periods is just qualitatively different than stuff grown under artificial lights for two months.

The point is that pictures of smuggled bud from the 1970s that look like schwagg don't really represent the true potential of those lines.

If you want to get some sense of the difference, just click on my "schwagg" journal in my signature below. This particular stuff didn't end up with "devastating" potency, but it definitely isn't "weak" a good bit stronger than the schwagg, and the final product really was night and day different in terms of flavor and appearance.

30-40 years of selective indoor breeding is going to yield better plants.
Click to expand...
Compared to Santa Marta (Columbian Gold) that was selectively bred for at least 500 years?

Or Mazai Sharif (Afghani) that has probably been selectively bred for over 1000 years?

Or Thai/Cambodian strains that have also been selectively bred for at least several centuries?

I'd say the main accomplishment of indoor breeding in the last 30 years was to create a whole bunch of strains optimized for indoor growing. Its also hybridized certain strains from a wide variety of lines, so you can have the flavor of a tropical line mixed with the effect of a subcontinental one, for example. That's an "improvement", arguably, though not really in terms of potency or effect.

In terms of outdoor breeding, a major accomplishment was just to create lines that grow well outdoors in North America.
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
althor said:
I am still looking for a few of the lost strains of the 80s.
Click to expand...
See the second line of my sig for Williams Wonder.

That one may be back in a big way. . .we'll see.

Which other 1980s strains are you looking for?
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Fatty R Buckle said:
So , your telling me in a nut shell you had stronger weed back in the day..???? And everything today is B mid's..????
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying that.

There was plenty of true schwagg in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and today.

I think what's being said here is that the BEST stuff from the 1970s was great in its own right, and even if it isn't quite as powerful as the very best of the best "elite" strains today, it was still better than lots of stuff that's around now, in terms of flavor, potency, and effect.

Again, see my sig for two specific examples.

I grew out some twelve year old schwagg ceeds from brickweed, and the plants were beautiful, crystally, with a nice spicy-lemon scent. Potency, nowhere near "Abusive OG", obviously, but quality of high is quite good, and plants were tough and resilient.

Second example, Red the breeder from Sickmeds ceeds grew out some Williams Wonder ceeds from an original SSSC pack from the late 1980s, and he just had that line commercially tested at over 20% THC with 25% total cannabinoids. That makes his 20+ year old pack of commercial ceeds directly comparable in potency to most of the "OG" and "diesel" strains from today, if not the absolutely most potent ones.

Furthermore, Williams Wonder is actually a stable true-breeding line (not some irreproduceable "clone only" hybrid) that probably traces back to a thousand year old Afghani.

Abusive og is tested at over 30% thc and its shwag to your spooky magical 70's weed..? Bullshit!!!!!! You sir dont smoke nor grow the best with a answer like that... Shanti who is a god in this biz and was around breeding and smoking at the time. Stated many times that the quality of weed is doing nothing but getting better..
Click to expand...
Again, I don't think anyone is saying that "Abusive OG" is schwagg.

Try taking your HPS-acclimated "abusive OG", growing it OUTDOORS (where its subject to pests, mold, and other issues) not sexing the plants, harvesting when the police are looking (rather than at their peak), chopping off just the tops, curing them in the sun, bricking, then smuggling them.

Do that, and I think you'll find that the "abusive OG" isn't quite as abusive as it could be!
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
JJFOURTWENTY said:
I think, dare I say, "the golden age" of breeding was late 80's to mid 90's. That's when NL, AK, Skunk, Romulan, Williams Wonder, White Rhino, C99, etc, all came about. Take Northern Lights for example - didn't that take like a decade or something to develop? And wasn't Skunk a very long and selective breeding project between some of the best, most serious Cali growers at the time??
Click to expand...
The early 80s, I think is really when Reagan's "war on drugs" started to kick in. At that time smuggling became a lot harder, and that's when the modern wave of breeding to develop hybrid indica plants suitable for indoor growing really took off. Back then breeders were still mostly working with original landrace strains, too.

At that time, in some places breeders could still get away with doing large scale outdoor (or in some cases indoor) grows to do massive selections from hundreds or in some cases even thousands of plants. That's TRUE breeding, and that's how lines like Skunk #1, etc were developed. Its also, by the way, how all the landraces were developed, though in those cases, by definition environmental conditions also played a major role.

Unfortunately, with increasing aerial surveillance, changes to the law in Switzerland and other previously grow-friendly jurisdictions, the ability of breeders to do true large-scale selections has mostly gone away.

In terms of specific lines, some of the strains you mention were developed with outdoor selective breeding over long periods of time (Northern lights is supposedly like that), some indoor over shorter periods (eg AK and White Rhino). C99 and Williams Wonder were probably bred outdoors at some point, though I think the specific history of those two lines is somewhat obscure. Again, some think Williams Wonder is just a pure Afghani, just acclimatized (ie selected) for growing in the Pacific northwest.
 
A

althor

Well-Known Member
Jogro said:
See the second line of my sig for Williams Wonder.

That one may be back in a big way. . .we'll see.

Which other 1980s strains are you looking for?
Click to expand...

The real deal OZARK mountain skunk. The strain only known as "Christmas tree" or "Christmas bud". Lime green, smells just like a real christmas tree and very trippy. Much more trippy than any of the "sativas" I smoked from the 70s.
 
kona gold

kona gold

Well-Known Member
Fatty R Buckle said:
So , your telling me in a nut shell you had stronger weed back in the day..???? And everything today is B mid's..????
Abusive og is tested at over 30% thc and its shwag to your spooky magical 70's weed..? Bullshit!!!!!! You sir dont smoke nor grow the best with a answer like that... Shanti who is a god in this biz and was around breeding and smoking at the time. Stated many times that the quality of weed is doing nothing but getting better..

http://youtu.be/KIHkSafj1Xw[/QUOTE



Ok "fatty".....let me explain this again so you can follow.
I did not grow up smoking in the70's, my older brother did and i am going off of his experiences and of other i know in that age bracket....my experiences are from early 80's till current...and i have been breeding and growing since '92.
Now from my personal experience, and having a large group of growers and dealers as friends for many years.

Now if what you think is true.....then please explain to me why NL#5 is way weaker today than in the '80/'90's....why are old strains seeked out by today's best breeders if they were weaker...like pre-98 bubba...pre-2000 chronic/kali mist....and the list goes on! All the chem dawg line came from bag seed weed from the early '90'.....og kush is a very old strain...and again the earlier stuff tasted much better and was more potent!!!!!
If you see Shanti as a god....you are definatly showing your ignorance....or any other breeder for that reason!!!

The sativa's i had when i started breeding were not pure landraces for the most part...but sativa's that were successfully bred each generation for faster maturation, bud density, flavor, thc, and total crystal content!!!! Some strains you would also breed according to thats plants special qualities, and not worried about looks, cause thes strains would show some mutations of superior quality....only strain i can compare this to today is Dr. Grinspoon, and possibly some well grown diesel!!!
Today the genetics are becoming more and more limited...with strains like kush, crossed with everything to create a new hybrid.....i dont care what "abusive og" thc percentage is, cause they never tested thc back then, and besides its just another kush hybrid...booooooooring!!!!!!

Again i am truly sorry for you folks growing today....thinking you are growing the most potent stuff ever!!!!!
See we used to get high for many hours, some strains you were literally high all day.....today you are lucky to find one that lasts 2 hours......but potency has increased right!!!????!!!
We had "lambs breath" in the mid '80's that i bet would test at around 50% thc if abusive tests over 30%....cause one bowl, didnt even attemp bong hits, would fuck up three people for most of the day....with a 3-5 hour peak that was sooooooo strong you thought you were trippin!!!! I have grown today's gear, and stillgrowing, to only be dissatisfied!!!! I can take my best kush....pack on a huge glob of oil on top...burn the most lung busting bong rip...and still only get so high and the affects still dont last 5 hours or even close!!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
racerboy71

racerboy71

bud bootlegger
i also lol when people say that weed back then only had say 8% thc and weed today has in the 20's.. thc is only one cannabinoid in a long list of them, and surely not the only one that has an effect on the mind.. who's to say there aren't other cannabinoids that are also as active as thc which has an effect on the high / stone..
 
mrueeda

mrueeda

Well-Known Member
Come on man, 50 % thc, 5 hours high...Maybe its a little exaggerated...Moreover i really can't understand why this hypothetical quality collapse would have happened...Did the breeders select the weaker strains in the last 10/15 years ?? Why ??
 
kona gold

kona gold

Well-Known Member
mrueeda said:
Come on man, 50 % thc, 5 hours high...Maybe its a little exaggerated...Moreover i really can't understand why this hypothetical quality collapse would have happened...Did the breeders select the weaker strains in the last 10/15 years ?? Why ??
Click to expand...
I know that sounds foriegn nowadays....but some strains had affects that lasted that long....no exaggeration!!!!
50% thc i dont know, but compared to strongest stuff today that is supposedly 30%......50% was more for comapative reasons than actual fact!!!

Breeding was weakened early by bad selections....example of earliest was skunk#1, they bred it for sweetness instead of skunkiness, and the potency on the sweet side is weak!!! This can be attributed to dutch people liking tobacco with their weed, and maybe sweet tastes better with tobacco than skunk. Also american breeders back then had a different agenda than the dutch society....we liked radical, creativeness, and evil scientists...that wanted ,and got off on, their own underground varieties!!!!
Haze, by most accounts, was selected bu the dutch for the columbian spicy part of that hybrid, where as the original breeders might have selected for the thai or south indian pheno's.

Also bag appeal became more important, as well as plant selected for indoor growing, and many other reasons have lead to inferior breeding today!
 
mrueeda

mrueeda

Well-Known Member
Didn't know all these things...thanks for the lesson ! But in the last 30 days i think that there was always somone selecting for the potency then the power of today's weed must be comparable to those years if not better...
 
A

althor

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
i also lol when people say that weed back then only had say 8% thc and weed today has in the 20's.. thc is only one cannabinoid in a long list of them, and surely not the only one that has an effect on the mind.. who's to say there aren't other cannabinoids that are also as active as thc which has an effect on the high / stone..
Click to expand...
There is truth to this. While today's weed is much more powerful, there is something missing. I cant put my finger on it, nor can others who know the difference, but there is something missing. I think it was more of a rounded cannabinoid profile.
And it was WEAKER, even the good stuff. People would smoke multiple joints in a sitting and some of that landrace sativa have no ceilings. So after 2-3 joints back to back it would compound and kick that ass.
 
racerboy71

racerboy71

bud bootlegger
althor said:
There is truth to this. While today's weed is much more powerful, there is something missing. I cant put my finger on it, nor can others who know the difference, but there is something missing. I think it was more of a rounded cannabinoid profile.
And it was WEAKER, even the good stuff. People would smoke multiple joints in a sitting and some of that landrace sativa have no ceilings. So after 2-3 joints back to back it would compound and kick that ass.
Click to expand...
exactly... a lot of today's breeders have been breeding only for high levels of thc all the while ignoring other cannabinoids like cbd.. only with in the last year or so have breeders realized the added medical benefit of cbd and we now have things like the cbd crew and strains like cannatonic and now herliquin.
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
i also lol when people say that weed back then only had say 8% thc and weed today has in the 20's.. thc is only one cannabinoid in a long list of them, and surely not the only one that has an effect on the mind.. who's to say there aren't other cannabinoids that are also as active as thc which has an effect on the high / stone..
Click to expand...
There are several real issues in comparing THC test results from the 1970s and 80s with those from today.

For one thing, the assays are different today, and a good bit more sensitive. If you look at the good commercial assays out there right now, they measure not only THC, but CBD, THCV, CBN, and other cannabinoids. When lots of people talk about "THC" they're really talking about total cannabinoids, and its an important distinction because the other cannabinoids generally weren't measured way back when. Many labs also completely dessicate their samples before testing. That's useful for standardization between strains, and it is a legitimate way of measurement, but it also inflates the total cannabinoid content considerably compared to original sample weight.

Next, as mentioned, the outdoor grown stuff from the 1970s typically was leafy with stems and ceeds, where as today you're basically looking at highly manicured top buds only. On top of that, the stuff submitted for testing is usually the most potent tippy-top bud of the best single plant, not a mixed sample of all buds from all plants. So of course as a percentage by weight the stuff from today is going to measure out much higher in cannabinoids, even if it isn't really any stronger.

If the question is "how strong is the old stuff compared to todays" the best way to answer that is with side-by-side assays of old stock grown today vs new stuff.

This kind of thing has been done, and not surprisingly, I think, the older lines do hold up reasonably well.

If you test a dried manicured top, a good cut of simple Skunk #1 can exceed 15% THC, and there are any number of hybrids that can test even higher. A good cut of Northern lights can yield 20% THC, and I've actually seen at least one published analysis over 25%. As mentioned above, old seedstock Williams Wonder from the late 1980s was just tested out at 20% THC with 25% total cannabinoids. And these are all stable inbred commercial lines (not "clone only" hybrids).

How about landraces? Well, I've seen an analysis of Jamaican Lamb's breath tested at 19% THC. No, that's not 25%+ platinum/abusive/ghostcut OG, but its still highly potent in its own right, and for a 1970s-era landrace I'd say its pretty damn respectable. Durban Poison, is an old African landrace, and a cut of that tested out at over 20% THC and recently cited by High Times magazine in their "most potent strains" issue.

Bottom line is, maybe the best of the best from today is stronger than what was around 40 years ago, but the best stuff from the 1970s is still way up there, and would qualify as "top shelf" in any current dispensary, I think.
 
Jogro

Jogro

Well-Known Member
racerboy71 said:
exactly... a lot of today's breeders have been breeding only for high levels of thc all the while ignoring other cannabinoids like cbd.. only with in the last year or so have breeders realized the added medical benefit of cbd and we now have things like the cbd crew and strains like cannatonic and now herliquin.
Click to expand...
Well, CBD is a whole other issue. CBD has certain medical effects, like anti-inflammatory, and anti-spasmodic, but it doesn't have psychoactive effect. In fact, high CBD actually prevents much of the psychoactive effect associated with THC. These pharmacologic effects of CBD have been known for decades, though with the advent of relatively "serious" medical cannabis in the last few years, there has been some commercial interest in developing high-CBD commercial strains of late.

Relevant here, landrace sativa strains contain negligible amounts of CBD. Typically indicas are the ones with signficant CBD content, though even there a "lot" of CBD might be as much as 1%. Even the most potent of the "kush" strains (like "abusive" and "ghost") still typically have relatively low CBD under 1%.

The point is, Afghani strains from 40 years ago still had CBD where as Thai strains didn't. I don't think CBD per se, explains any difference in effect between today's weed and that from the 1970s.

If you want to invoke cannabinoids here as explaining the difference in high quality between older and contemporary weed, I'll give a few theories:

-Some believe that seeded weed actually has a different cannabinoid profile than seedless, explaining some difference in effect in stuff from the 70s.

-Stuff grown outdoors (let alone at altitude) may also have different cannabinoid profiles, again explaining some difference.

-Non cannabinoid terpenes (especially myrcene) have been shown to affect how cannabinoids traverse the blood-brain barrier and can affect high. Differences in these other compounds (which are typically NOT measured) may also explain qualitative differences in psychoactivity between strains with otherwise similar cannabinoid numbers.

-Other than THC, CBD, CBN, THVC, CBC, and CBG (which are the cannabinoids you'll see on modern assays) there are some 40 other cannabinoids, and nobody really knows exactly what they do. Its known that they won't, by themselves, get you "high", but how they affect the psychoactivity of THC is simply unknown.

-And I hate this one. . .though I have to say it. . .it well may be that cumulative experience with cannabinoids, as well as age, modulates the effect. Stuff from the 1970s may have worked better not because it was chemically better (or even different), but because your brain and cannabinoid receptors were younger.
 
E

echlectica

Well-Known Member
Here is something to consider: back then most pot was seeded and after removing the seeds seeded weed is more potent by volume than non seeded. Also I believe I read somewhere maybe in Marijuana Botany that when a calix is has a seed in it the trichomes produce more THC in order to protect the seed within. So taking those things into consoderation can you see how after removing all of the seeds from some old weed and rolling a good sized joint you would get completely blitzed because you were smoking nothing but the calyx's outer coat with very little veggie material and a lot of trichomes. and we all know that sativas have plenty of trichomes that are just really small. Also the people who grew the weed back in the day took some pride in it dried and cured the product properly before shipping it north.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top