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

[Jogro]

Didn't know all these things...thanks for the lesson ! But in the last 30 days [years] 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...

Well, I don't think anyone is claiming that today's stuff is *LESS* potent than the stuff from the 70s! Some people do claim that the quality of the "high" of the stuff from the 70s was better.

I wasn't smoking weed in the 70s, but this seems plausible to me. Again, in the 70s you had pure landrace sativa strains, grown outdoors in their native environments. Some people think that high quality is largely related to just length of flowering time, and maybe there is something to that.

Very few people are growing out 16+ week flowering plants indoors. These plants typically aren't suitable for indoor grows, being stretchy, hermie-prone and low yielding. Unless you have a greenhouse, you can't really grow them outdoors in most of the USA either (due to winter coming and killing your plants). True tropical/long season outdoor grown sativas like this just don't get smuggled into the USA much anymore either. Much of the Mexican "brick" stuff that gets smuggled in nowadays has been genetically bastardized specifically to increase yield and provide earlier harvests. The genetics aren't the same as in the 70s.

In terms of breeding for potency, some people think that cannabis is literally THE oldest plant ever cultivated by man. If it isn't, its certainly ONE of them, with documented cultivation going back roughly 10,000 years.

So its not like cannabis has "only" been cultivated for potency in the last 30 years. Humans have been selectively breeding it for max potency literally since pre-historical times.

Some individual lines, like the Afghani Mazari Shariff can probably trace back 1000 years or more. Simon Bolivar supposedly traded cannabis in his trips around Latin America in the early 19th century. The line he used was believed to be the founder of the modern Santa Marta/Columbian Gold, meaning that line traces back at least 200 years. Drug use of cannabis is mentioned in the Judaic talmud, dating back roughly 1500 years.

Anyway, with 10,000 years of selective human breeding all over the planet for max potency, I think its reasonable to think that the plants genetic maximum potential, or pretty close to it, has probably been reached some time ago.

 

[Nightmarecreature]

I just smoked some Skywalker Og that tested at THC 27.4 % CBD 1.6% CBN 0.3% (29.3% Total). While the weed was still good back then, they didn't have stuff like this PERIOD! Marijuana started out mainly as a fiber source, with selective breeding, potency has been increased. I have a strain from 1982, that's dank and potency is around 18-20% THC. Most of the weed in the old days was terrible but not all of it was. Potency is only going to get better, along with flavor. Come on man they didn't have Cherry Pie in the good old days.

 

[Fatty R Buckle]

Well, I don't think anyone is claiming that today's stuff is *LESS* potent than the stuff from the 70s! Some people do claim that the quality of the "high" of the stuff from the 70s was better.

I wasn't smoking weed in the 70s, but this seems plausible to me. Again, in the 70s you had pure landrace sativa strains, grown outdoors in their native environments. Some people think that high quality is largely related to just length of flowering time, and maybe there is something to that.

Very few people are growing out 16+ week flowering plants indoors. These plants typically aren't suitable for indoor grows, being stretchy, hermie-prone and low yielding. Unless you have a greenhouse, you can't really grow them outdoors in most of the USA either (due to winter coming and killing your plants). True tropical/long season outdoor grown sativas like this just don't get smuggled into the USA much anymore either. Much of the Mexican "brick" stuff that gets smuggled in nowadays has been genetically bastardized specifically to increase yield and provide earlier harvests. The genetics aren't the same as in the 70s.

In terms of breeding for potency, some people think that cannabis is literally THE oldest plant ever cultivated by man. If it isn't, its certainly ONE of them, with documented cultivation going back roughly 10,000 years.

So its not like cannabis has "only" been cultivated for potency in the last 30 years. Humans have been selectively breeding it for max potency literally since pre-historical times.

Some individual lines, like the Afghani Mazari Shariff can probably trace back 1000 years or more. Simon Bolivar supposedly traded cannabis in his trips around Latin America in the early 19th century. The line he used was believed to be the founder of the modern Santa Marta/Columbian Gold, meaning that line traces back at least 200 years. Drug use of cannabis is mentioned in the Judaic talmud, dating back roughly 1500 years.

Anyway, with 10,000 years of selective human breeding all over the planet for max potency, I think its reasonable to think that the plants genetic maximum potential, or pretty close to it, has probably been reached some time ago.

Have you ever seen this.....???????????

http://youtu.be/bTH9Xu4BoFk

 

[althor]

Mazar might have been "cultivated" for a 1000 years, but potency is not one of its strong points from the samples I have had.

 

[Jogro]

Mazar might have been "cultivated" for a 1000 years, but potency is not one of its strong points from the samples I have had.

Not at all doubting your experience, but have you smoked actual Afghani plants, or someones indoor-grown commercial representation?

Apparently some of the commercial lines with that name aren't the real deal, just generic Afghani plants labelled "Mazari shariff", or hybrids with some Afghani lineage (eg Afghan x Skunk). Remember, in the early 1980s the Soviets invaded, took over the area, and literally set up base in the city of Mazari Shariff (there's a big airport there), completely eradicating the traditional local cannabis cultivation. Some even claim the real line was lost at this time. I kind of doubt that, but I think this really is a case where there are some imposters floating around.

In any case, we may be running into some of the same issue with the other '70s strains here. Mazari Shariff is a true indica adapted to growing outdoors, in dry climates and especially high UV desert sun (not indoors under low-UV HPS lights). Take the landrace out of its native environment, and it won't be as good.

Also, this particular plant was also never meant to be be smoked by itself as ganja (flowers). Instead it was bred specifically to make hashish. The selection in question was probably for large trichrome heads that are easily sieved, and flavor/quality of said heads.

So in this case, the proper measure of its potency/quality isn't smoking the buds, but the hash. Personally, I've never had the pleasure, but the real deal Mazari hash from prior to the 1980s was widely thought to be the best in the world.

 

[littlegiant]

Dude,those were some shit photo's.I cant believe high times put those shit photo's in there mag.Weed back then was tasty and potent.I would love to taste some good old tasty red bud,columbia gold,and that thai stick brings back good times.Potency and taste have come a long way since then but im glad i had the chance to sample those old strains that everything is based off of now.

 

[Jogro]

I just smoked some Skywalker Og that tested at THC 27.4 % CBD 1.6% CBN 0.3% (29.3% Total). While the weed was still good back then, they didn't have stuff like this PERIOD!

Well, when fresh, the best of the Afghani "royal" hash from the 1970s supposedly could run nearly 50% THC, making it far more potent than ANY flowers, including your favorite OG. Of course you weren't going to find that for sale on the street in the USA, but it did exist, along with lesser grades of hash running the full spectrum of potency up to that amount. In fact, prior to the Soviet invasion, there was a brisk trade of tourism in the Afghani "tea houses" where foreigners would come and smoke hash.

Also, hash oil of >80% THC potency (ie "honey oil") isn't a new invention either, and it was out there on the black market in the 1970s. Here's a quaint blast from the past; Dr. Atomic's marijuana multiplier, showing you how to make your own isomerized hash oil, published in cartoon form in 1974:

http://countyourculture.com/tag/hash-oil/

So even if we accept that the flowers today are the best in human history (which, they probably are), this idea that "they didn't have stuff like this period" in the '70s is still probably a bit off the mark. No, you couldn't just walk off the street into a dispensary and buy it off a shelf in CA the way you can today, but hash or hash oil as strong as the best flowers from today or stronger was available 40 years ago, assuming you had the cash and connections to score some.

Marijuana started out mainly as a fiber source, with selective breeding, potency has been increased. I have a strain from 1982, that's dank and potency is around 18-20% THC. Most of the weed in the old days was terrible but not all of it was. Potency is only going to get better, along with flavor. Come on man they didn't have Cherry Pie in the good old days.

Just to be clear here, by definition marijuana is cannabis grown for drug purposes, hemp is cannabis bred for fiber, oil, or seed. Its the same species, but the lines of the two types of plants diverged literally thousands of years ago. Strong drug cannabis isn't a recent phenomenon.

I fully agree that selective breeding carried out over the last 30 years has greatly improved both the quantity and quality of available flavors out there. I'd also go so far as to say, that with legalization increasing, we may well be in a "golden age" of cannabis right now, and that things appear to be getting better. (You never really know that until after!).

In terms of potency, again, even accepting that the quality of flowers is better than at any prior point in human history, I'm really not so sure things are going to get all that much better. Ultimately, there is a genetic maximum amount of cannabinoids any plant can produce. It has to do with the physical amount of resin glands a plant can put out per square mm of bud, the surface area of the buds, as well as the amount of cannabinoids in said glands. My suspicion is, that if we aren't at the maximum already, we're probably pretty close.

Ultimately, does it even really matter? Is a 27% THC plant really functionally better than a 21% one? (EG is 100 proof whisky "better" than 80 proof?) Everyone likes to think they're smoking the "strongest" stuff and there is a bit of gamesmanship with numbers, but I think once you get into the "really strong" category, subjective things like flavor and high quality become more important than absolute potency.

Also, no matter how good plants get, you're never going to breed flowers as potent as 60% THC water hash, let alone 95%+ hash oil. So in THAT sense, "max" potency has probably been hit.

 

[kona gold]

Ok....this debate is getting pretty deep, but getting no where at the same time!!!! So maybe if i ask a simple question maybe we can come to some kind of understanding: Now this question pertains to anyone young and old whom has smoked pot for at least a few years. Its a question that hopefully help us to get a more scientific experimental type of finding. This is a complex question, because i hear some older folks conceding that todays weed is stronger and that it was because they were younger and canabinoid receptors or not as they were in their youth....or that because the averager weed today is better than pancaked dried out black seeded amonia smeling foriegn particles viney nasry average weed from the day!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course og kush is a million times better than the majority of that mex junk...cant even really call that weed!!!!!! So here's the real question.....and you must be honest and as least exaggerative as you can possibly be: "Has the weed you smoked, growing up post 2000, gotten you high for 5+ hours!" Now what i mean by this is: Have you smoked marijuana, from time to time, in your first years of smoking that have floored you for 5+ hours? Im talking sooooo high that nothing you eat of drink changes will bring you down! Where you are laughing hysterically for no reason till tears, just "fucked" up and your just along for the ride......and when you finally come down, with most of day done, you pass out, and wake up with a hang over, or sometimes still high? I am curious to see what people smoking today's early experiences are!!!!

 

[yesum]

First time I smoked I felt the effects the next day and it was just regular Mexican pot. Some of the memories were from fresh minds and not the smoke from back then.

By the late 70's I had smoked for years and I got smoke that was about as good as now, no doubt. A few percentage points of thc will not matter too much.

Trim it up tighter, handle it more careful, refrigerate it, etc. You can take the same buds and by just caring for them different, change the thc % by a few points.

I think the best stuff today is more potent than most anything from the past, but not enough to care about. Real easy to get it here in cali. That is different.

I had some Hawaiian late 80's that was as strong as anything I have smoked recent.

 

[SteezyDee]

This is retarded! Weed has obviously evolved and grown to just be overall better. Seeing as people in this thread have said it (who've been smoking since those days might I add), people I personally know have said it (who've been smoking since those days might I add!), and common sense would say it.. I'll have to go with that answer. But again - you can't know for sure unless you were able to test it.

Point is, ok maybe bag appeal doesnt say everything about weed, and maybe having it under perfect conditions wasn't possible back then, but that all adds to the fact that weed has gotten better. I'd rather smoke a fat juicy frosty nug, which no matter what anyone says - the weed today is pretty effective at getting you retardedly high, than having to sort out a bunch of seed stem and leaf to smoke a dirty looking ragged piece of bud to get high.

Clearly people arent going to come to a consensus. Just agree to disagree and move along, because at the end of the day it's preference. Who is anyone to tell anyone else that what they experienced wasn't better? Maybe not to your standards but to theirs it did the job perfectly.

Generation X mo'thafuckas.

 

[littlegiant]

Ah! The good o'l days! Mow the guys lawn next door.
Run out and buy a nickel bag=(shot glass full of bud) of Red bud,or Columbian Gold for $5 bucks.
Cost you a hundo now. Sad!!

 

[Jogro]

This is a complex question, because i hear some older folks conceding that todays weed is stronger and that it was because they were younger and canabinoid receptors or not as they were in their youth....

To be clear, the question here wasn't specifically about potency, but high QUALITY.

Many who have tried it believe that the old school outdoor grown stuff has more of a giggly up "high" (apart from its potency) than stuff from today, and the question is why. One of my possible explanations was just that pot at age 50 doesn't hit you the same as at age 19. Its not that the pot is different, its that YOU are different.

or that because the averager weed today is better than pancaked dried out black seeded amonia smeling foriegn particles viney nasry average weed from the day!!!!

Well, what ISN'T better than that?

I think the marketplace has changed so dramatically, that even the low-end Mexican schwagg from today is quite a bit better than the most common stuff off the street from the 70s.

Here's the real question.....and you must be honest and as least exaggerative as you can possibly be: "Has the weed you smoked, growing up post 2000, gotten you high for 5+ hours!"

I don't think I've ever had any smoked weed keep me high for five hours without having to "refresh" after a few (pre or post 2000). Eaten. . .yes, smoked, no.

I'm not at all saying its impossible, but it hasn't happened for me. Personally, I generally don't like to smoke myself into a stupor, which is probably a factor here since dosage is definitely a factor in high duration. I most certainly have woken up the next day with a weed hangover, though!

This is retarded! Weed has obviously evolved and grown to just be overall better. Seeing as people in this thread have said it (who've been smoking since those days might I add), people I personally know have said it (who've been smoking since those days might I add!), and common sense would say it.. I'll have to go with that answer. But again - you can't know for sure unless you were able to test it.

With due respect, I don't think this is "obvious", especially if you weren't there.

There is no question in anybody's mind that the AVERAGE buds from today are much better than those from the 70s when smuggled leafy buds with stems and ceeds was the norm. I'd even go so far as to say that the worst stuff from today is probably better than the most of the weed from the 70s. There is also no question that really top quality bud is far more readily available today than ever before AND in greater variety. So yeah, if you look at the "curves", the stuff from today is way better. If you're an average consumer, the stuff on the street today is WAY better than the stuff from the 70s.

I think the more interesting question isn't comparing the street schwagg from the 70s, but rather how the BEST buds from the 70s stack up to the stuff from today.

Note that even back in the 70s the truly best stuff was hard to get a hold of, and extremely expensive (in relative dollars, actually more expensive than the top shelf stuff from today). Most of the country never even saw the highest end stuff like Thai sticks or Panama Red, and in places where you could get weed like that, its not something a high school smoker could probably afford. In fact, ANY seedless bud was rare enough to be considered a boutique novelty item in the in the 70s.

So when older smokers say that the stuff from today beats the tar out of anything they smoked in the 70s, they're certainly not wrong, but I think you have to dig a bit deeper to see exactly what they're actually comparing. Most of the smokers from the 70s simply never got to try the best of that era, where as anyone today with a medical card can walk into a dispensary and buy from a selection of multiple types of world-class buds. Smokers I know who tried the real deal Columbian Gold, Panama Red, etc from the 70s, still think that stuff was as good as most of the stuff from today, and some still think it was qualitatively better even if it wasn't actually stronger (see above).

 

[Moldy]

Eh, I was smoking 60's weed. Ten bucks got you a lid. Every now and then it'd knock you on your ass but we were kids so everything seemed better. We got some gold and some red but that was about it. Same with acid. As a kid your imagination was running wild along with your hormornes so a 60's acid trip was never dupicated (but that was some serious acid back then). It'll always seem better 50 years ago. You can't take those memories away. I had a wonderful youth and I am very thankful for it. So I think the weed is much better but the acid isn't.

 

[echlectica]

There is still some excelent acid around...

And as for the weed of yesterday compared to today I have a few strains that you don't see anymore that would blow anything from today away.
Big Sur Holly Bud.
Original Haze.
Mendocino Madness
Grand Ma Bud
any of those are better than most of whats around today...

 

[yesum]

I think the more interesting question isn't comparing the street schwagg from the 70s, but rather how the BEST buds from the 70s stack up to the stuff from today.

Note that even back in the 70s the truly best stuff was hard to get a hold of, and extremely expensive (in relative dollars, actually more expensive than the top shelf stuff from today). Most of the country never even saw the highest end stuff like Thai sticks or Panama Red, and in places where you could get weed like that, its not something a high school smoker could probably afford. In fact, ANY seedless bud was rare enough to be considered a boutique novelty item in the in the 70s.

So when older smokers say that the stuff from today beats the tar out of anything they smoked in the 70s, they're certainly not wrong, but I think you have to dig a bit deeper to see exactly what they're actually comparing. Most of the smokers from the 70s simply never got to try the best of that era, where as anyone today with a medical card can walk into a dispensary and buy from a selection of multiple types of world-class buds. Smokers I know who tried the real deal Columbian Gold, Panama Red, etc from the 70s, still think that stuff was as good as most of the stuff from today, and some still think it was qualitatively better even if it wasn't actually stronger (see above).

I think this sums it up. For me getting the best was tough but I got a bit of it. It was great smoke and stoned me as well as today's best or close to it. Most was not as good as today's by any means, some was just crap.

I have read others who say they got top Colombian, Panama, Mexican etc. and they say today's is much better. Well, do not know what to tell you on that.

 

[hsfkush]

thai stick classic

I smoked some of that Thai Stick about 6 years ago, it did nothing but give me a fucking headache! Lol.

However, I'm sure that some of the strains were genuinely awesome for back then. Now, cannabis is a lot stronger in terms of THC content. Personally I prefer todays stuff, it looks, smells and tastes better and I also personally think the "brb going to bed" high is awesome!

 

[GardenM]

I smoked from 1970-78, and never had Acapulco Gold or Panama Red. But, on the second page of the OP's post, 3rd row down, far right, is Columbian Chiba. It was in our area (NE) in 1973 for about 3-4 weeks and was the stuff of legend. Actually, for some reason it was called Sheeba-Sheeba, but we new it was Columbian and I suspect this was it. Stoned from head to toe for several hours. Nothing like it ever came around again for the period I smoked. I just smoked some Northern Lights, and it is just unbelievably strong - but it's a much different high too. So, I would say the weed of today is stronger, but it's an apples to oranges comparison because the effect is so different. Although, maybe it's my age too.

 

[Clankie]

I am only 30, but 2 of my patients have been smoking since the late 60s, and they would agree that it is more of an issue in the availability of strong herb versus herb actually becoming stronger. Not to mention the introduction of afghani genetics. Bonus points to anyone who mentioned that hash has been around for like 4000 years or more and has always been a much stronger smoke. Not to mention that they used to just eat it.