Marijuana Stronger???

Ok, raise your hands if you have heard this before. CNN is reporting that 'a new study' says the marijuana produced today is stronger than that smoked in the 1960's and 1970's

"Researchers and treatment experts have argued for some time that today's more powerful marijuana has more harmful effects on users. This report underscores that we are no longer talking about the drug of the 1960s and 1970s -- this is Pot 2.0," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=218

Doesn't it seem like they trot out this old cannard every year. They could just change the names and dates and not even have to write a new article. It is true that todays pot is stronger than the Mexican dirt weed people smoked in the 60's, but I would say that today's sinsemilla (sp?) is not substantially stronger than that produced in the late 1970's. How do I know this? I lived in Northern California (The Emerald Triangle) during the time sinsemilla was being developed and shall we say consumed my fair share as the crops were perfected and continued to consume through the 1990's.

Another thing this report said was "60% of teenagers being treated for drug abuse claim that marijuana is their primary drug of abuse". Ok, lets take a look at this statement. Sure if these kids are doing drugs pot is probably the easiest to get so they use it the most. On the other hand this statement does not say that is what they are being 'treated' for.

Is anybody else tired of this old worn propaganda that is thrown out there in the name of the 'War on Drugs'? It is time for our government to stop lying to the people of this country.

that smoked marijuana back in the 30's-this was around 1980 or so-this is more total bovine metabolic byproducts from the government.

if they been smoking it since the 30's?

and I've been at it since 1965.

I quit back in the early 80's because the indica varieties were a hell of a lot stronger than the sativa I was used to smoking. 2 hits and I was paralyzed. That wasn't fun. So I quit.

catatonic.. i got cold sweats and spinning vertigo.. very un comfortable.. it was great for sex and music. the stuff today can be dangerious.. i quit smoking years ago

to laugh at your experience, but I think all of us have gone through that stage. You have to learn not to try and smoke the whole thing until you know where it's going to take you. If you haven't smoked in the last 20 years, you are in for a BIG surprise at the small amount needed to "get there."

Someone upthread called it right regarding the difference between indica and stavia.

I've never been much of a smoker. That being said, I remember sharing joints around in high school (70's, and early 80's) and getting a great buzz. Only smoke on rare occassion now.

A couple years back, I smoked a time or two with a friend, one hit and I was nearly in a coma. He's been smoking for 30 years and said that pot growing today has been refined. You can get just about any type of weed, from 'street' weed to what he called 'coma' weed.

After that experience, I believe him. Seems the pot that exists today at parties is a hell of a lot more potent. I'm very careful these days if I choose to indulge at all. I dont have much of a 'head for ganga' i've been told, so its best I partake sparingly, if at all.

I have a friend who runs a dispensary in SF who I always have to "just say no" to, because one hit and I'm paralyzed from the brain down..

however, higher potency means fewer hits, and thus any anti-pot argument based on the harmful effects from inhaling burning plant material are nullified :)

As well as selectively planting seeds from better stuff.

I am not saying that there isn't some 'strong' pot around. I remember taking a couple of bong hits of some Maui Wowie back in the mid-1970's and then waking up an hour or two later with my friends laughing at me. As far as I recall (at least in the pot growing area of Northern California which was one of the centers for the development of sinsemilla) in the late 60's most the weed was shipped in from Mexico (Mexican dirt weed) nice high but not real strong. In the late '60's and early 70's you could get Thai stick, Hawaiian and Columbian that was stronger. Starting about the mid-70's you started to see the first attempts at growing seedless, from there the quality skyrocketed but I still claim that the best pot today and the best 'sins' from then are not quantitatively stronger. Of course I smoked a lot of stuff that was the growers personal stash so maybe I was just personally exposed to the top of the line skunk weed.

it grow wild here (( Kansas, Mo area))

we call it ditch weed but makes me feel good and it is free.

and thanks to the odiferous nature of pot, kids are more likely to get busted for it than for any other drug, in addition to its availability.

That's my guess :smoke:

There was always higher grade and lower (anyone else remember the Thai?), the highgrade is now more plentiful than in the '60s.

The govt. stats are drawn from siezed samples. Back when, most busts came from narcs hanging in bars buying from stragers. Anything good would have been sold to preferred customers, with only the crap fronted to the losers dealing to strangers in bars.

What drifts my way today doesn't compare to some of the high moments of my youth. I appreciate it more today, but I fondly remember some preemo specimens past.

"60% of teenagers being treated for drug abuse claim that marijuana is their primary drug of abuse"

So they gave the drug addict, upon admission, a piece of paper listing drugs he/she might be taking, and the druggies marked pot 60% of the time...And this provides what?

The marijuana is stronger, but it's still relatively harmless -- regardless of it's strength?

I still don't think they should be putting people in jail because of it even if it is stronger and thats all John Walters wants to do regardless, of what people think, or science says, or whether or not the pot is stronger...it doesn't matter to these ideologues on any subject.

Yeah its stronger but the effects haven't changed. Come on Walters. Spend our tax dollars on something productive why don't you.

and seeing the big nose bastard who is the so called leader, on the so called war on drugs. If it is so strong then why don't they legalize it...

because it can lead to mental illness

I tend to read the research myself rather than to trust what someone tells me it says. What I find says that it can aggravate a preexisting condition but it can't be shown to cause a new one, not in a way that stands up to peer review. Pot as a cause isn't widely accepted as being shown. People with instabilities, diagnosed or not, can have bad reactions to legal alcohol or legal mood altering substances such as prozac or zoloft.

Personally I think the rise in potency is overstated, we went from seeded and poor quality Mexican and Columbian to good quality seedless when the growers moved indoors so most of the supposed "rise" in potency can be attributed to the drug war itself. When the pressure got high and the growers moved indoors there was nowhere for it to go but up, seedless makes more sense and is easier to control indoors and it doesn't have far to travel.

But let's assume for a moment that it is climbing in real terms rather than just changed in quality, where are we best going to be able to control things like potency and what ages are able to buy it? In basement grow rooms that hide from the cops and who are regulated by nobody, or behind the counter in a liquor store or pharmacy?

And if it does cause someone a problem are they better off afraid of seeking help, afraid of arrest, or would they be better off if they could seek help and guidance as easily and with as little risk and reason not to as we can now attend an AA meeting? The law keeps those who need help from seeking it and punishes those who were never really at risk.

You offered a reason to legalize and regulate it if you're right, not to keep it hidden with nobody but the criminals in charge of what the kids get. You don't legalize because it's ok, you legalize because they are safer with regulation than without it.

I just saw a report that, to paraphrase the title, "a new study claims marijuana leads to psychosis".
Again the propaganda mill puts out its semi-yearly bs. In reading the article the people doing the study claim the 'now' it has become 'apparent' that pot causes mental problems. Yet, if you read closer all this study did was accumulate conclusions from previous 'studies'. Tell me how does this make the conclusions 'now' conclusions when all you are doing is looking at studies from 'then'. More questions, did they look at all studies or only those that 'backed up' their predefined conclusions. How valid were the studies they used to reach their conclusions. They claim that by looking at all these studies it makes it example be of 1000's of people. As you stated use might aggravate an existing problem but I believe, yes it's just my belief because I haven't done any 'studies', their is nothing intrinsic in pot that causes mental problems.

I went back and looked at the study I sited above and discovered at the end of it the so-called scientists involved are connected to the pharmaceutical companies. Now isn't that special. Not only do we have to put up with lying 'drug warriors' but now the big drug makers are hiring their own propagandists. A secondary title on the article was 'Reefer Madness Redux'. Pretty accruate, they are using the same bs that they spewed back in the Harry Anslinger days just dressing it in modern pseudoscience mumbo jumbo.

so most of the supposed "rise" in potency can be attributed to the drug war itself.

Exactly. During Prohibition there was a noted shift from beers and wines to liqueurs as they were easier to ship. Refined cocaine is easier to ship clandestinely than coca leaves.

The law keeps those who need help from seeking it and punishes those who were never really at risk.

I agree completely. Of course, I figure that if it was legal, you could use the taxes from selling it legitimately to fund subsidized centers for those that need treatment for a whole heck of a lot cheaper than police and prison cells.

being alive can lead to mental illness also!
Pot is good for you IMHO!
Hemp would be good for the country!
:grr:


No the stuff these days rarely comes close to the old thai stick and columbian gold, lol.

That more potent marijuana is somehow "different" is a canard. Marijuana is marijuana, THC is THC. Yes, there is strong pot out there today (and more of it than in the '60s or '70s, although it existed then, too), but the difference between schwag and kind bud is like the difference between beer and whiskey.

The high-potency weed is typically high-dollar weed, running $400 an ounce or more. It's luxury weed for gourmets with money. The vast majority of weed in the US continues to be Mexican brick weed, which is lower in THC levels, mainly because of the industrial manner in which the Mexicans process it.

Yes, the number of teens in treatment for marijuana is rising. What drug czar Walters doesn't tell you, but what a careful reading of the SAMHSA stats shows, is that nearly 70% of the teens "seeking" treatment for "marijuana dependence" are "seeking" treatment because they were ordered to by a court or by school officials.

In other words, teen gets busted with joint, teen gets choice of jail or treatment, teen takes treatment, drug czar warns of rising number of teens needing treatment for marijuana.

in use by humans for thousands of years. as well as "selective breeding" of species..

the laws against it are unreasonable.
prohibition doesnt work, and pot is less harmful than alchocol. therefore it should be legal too.
users see it as a freedom issue.

everyone knows this..
and yet the system is allowed to proceed, destroying the lives of good people over some pot. and that there is the real and terrible crime taking place.

i think its a real shame the way this "modern free society" treats its own.

If you are smoking pot, the effects occurr fairly quickly. If you are smoking something stronger, you will probably use less.
This is like arguing that hard liquor is much worse than beer. Yes, it is stronger but responsible drinkers don't attempt to drink as much liquor as they would beer. With alcohol it is actually dangerous to make a mistake about what one is drinking and what the alcohol content is because the effects take longer to fully hit and too much alcohol can be deadly.

leads to rage, stupid mistakes and death..... to much pot leads to.....munchies and mind expanding conversations.

this shit is hyptocronaconakite!

This was in the late sixties and early seventies.

As strong as any today...period.


----

Since Thai Stick was usually coated with hash oil back in the old days.

Thai genetics of the 60's and 70's are still around today, although the genes are usually used to create hybrids.

He's facing something like 5 years. They trumped it up to "intent to sell" because they didn't think he could smoke it all himself. What a gyp

(which, of course I didn't do, because it was illegal) I might have smoked a couple fat joints of assorted leaves and stems to get high. And if I smoked pot today (which, of course, I don't do because it is illegal) I might smoke a small bowl of buds to get the same effect. So hypothetically, I might say since what is being passed around today (among those evil law-breakers who would do such dastardly things) is buds only, and no loose baggies of assorted leaves and stems.

That's all hypothetical, of course.