Reply #270: Cleetus... [View All]

I'm honored.

Usually these threads attract many old timers who are happy to share their experiences with you. You might try looking up and down the tread, but if you start an OP that says something like "pot today is 10 20 30 times better than it was in the 60s" you will get a lot of answers from people who have experience.

I'm not saying that there aren't contemporary products that are spectacular, I'm saying that my yardstick is something that was grown on a mountain in Columbia in 1969 under what must have been perfect conditions. Nothing I have had subsequently has been better. Others have their favorites, that's mine. There have been others, perhaps not as strong, but that has a special sweetness to the high. Oaxaca gold comes to mind. :)

Now you must decide whether to go with the majority (they are never wrong, of course) or use some common sense. What other cultivated produce can you name that is many times better than what was grown in the sixties? Pot has been cultivated for centuries, but they couldn't do it right until hippies went to Humboldt County?

On edit: The article you cite does not address the question. It does not consider the quality of the high, merely the measured THC content. It even states, "the potency of marijuana might not actually matter much, with smokers (and/or midnight tokers) adjusting their intake based on the bud’s THC content." As you might know there are myriad chemicals in pot that affect the kind of high you get. Judging marijuana on it's THC content (by weight) is like judging wine on it's alcohol content.

--imm