Weed back then was just as good as weed today.
How do I know?
I checked.
6 Likes
I mean, I know that 1 + 1 = 2, and Iâve forgotten more calculus than most people ever learn so⌠this is a weird argument to me 
Man, that @Foreigner is one cool dude.
You know how I know that?
I counted. 
2 Likes
Coolness: check.
Seriously I grew the same weed recently as I did 25 years ago and it was excellent.
6 Likes
3 Likes
Yeah but can he do my taxes?
2 Likes
You probably hold 5% of elite cuts.
Otherwise I dunno what seeds you got that killer bud you claim, or maybe your dealer has that one right clone for ages, why switch a cash cow ?
But still most of the market is watered down.
1 Like
You have a very negative attitude.
I stashed these seeds in my parents basement for 25 years
5 Likes
Since when lab tests are as straight forward as doing 1+1 ?
You use the most silly arguments reallyâŚ
To think we are talking to adults⌠Wrong.
I took a Time Machine back to 1984 and collected weed samples then brought them back to the future for testing.
Thatâd make a great movie.
6 Likes
What kind of weed was it? Or was it simply weed?
That sounds cool lol
1 Like
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
âGeorge Orwell, 1984
5 Likes
It was Nirvana California orange bud
1 Like
This has been touched on already and explain very good, especially by @Sbeanonnamellow.
But I just want to share another perspective.
Have anyone of you tried pure THC, no terps, no nothing. Pure THC. Itâs so crappy, itâs like a bad spice. Not even close to what cannabis is.
Many of you stones would taunt researchers for years that did or do experiments with pure THC, saying stuff like âTHAT IS NOT WHAT CANNABIS IS ABOUT!â.
So my perplexity is, why are we still having this discussion? You canât tell researchers that they donât understand cannabis, while doing the same shit yourself, but with flower.
THC will never matter and if you set the environment to produce max THC, you are also changing the phenotype! So thinking that a 20% Chem 91 is the same phenotype as a 31% Chem 91 is just fantasy world, thatâs not how plants work.
There is a few simple reactions which produce THC, if your focus on increasing the rate of these reaction. You are decreasing the reaction of something else. You canât eat the cake and have it too. It doesnât work like that.
Hope this rambling made any sense, but some of you are in the fantasy land of American commercial cannabis. Sure go head and make bud light, but donât come and tell me my krusovice is shit, just because your beer got higher ABV and is lighter in colorâŚ
Pz 
8 Likes
Fuckin goals bro
2 Likes
Thatâs a kilo of fresh green buds, of course. Indoors!
2 Likes
Itâs off-putting for me to go into a dispensary because they feel compelled to tell me the difference between indica and sativa. Every single time.
7 Likes
And the funny part is there ainât no way in hell they actually have some kind of 15 or 16 week sativa being grown in commercial facility.
6 Likes
I still think commercial facilities are running auto versions of strains so they can pump the buds up on high EC, not mess with light schedules and be done quicker, generally speaking.
âAlmost nothingâ is different than ânothingâ though
Even those small amounts of âminorâ cannabinoids can make a big difference of effects in comparison to the same THC % without those cannabinoids. Not to mention that this test result only shows cannabinoids, and doesnât include info on terpene profile. And not to mention that there are dozens or hundreds of other cannabinoids that are either not known, not understood, or are not isolated for testing.
All of these cannabinoids / terpenes / thiols combine and recombine under heat and other catalysts. These combinations have the potential to create even more chemical structures that havenât been identified or studied.
I think of it a little bit like coffee. Coffee has caffeine but in a brew that is just one of dozens or hundreds of chemicals being released, combining and recombining into different configurations and new chemicals that arenât present in the coffee beans themselves. Coffee makes me feel good in a way that most other caffeinated beverages do not make me feel. So why canât I take a caffeine pill that makes me feel the same? Even if I take pill with the equivalent caffeine as a cup of coffee it still doesnât make me feel energized in the same way, and it has none of the âgood mood / feelingâ I get from drinking coffee. So can the effects be explained solely by the caffeine?
Just some food for thought. Iâm not trying to be argumentative, so I hope this comes across as me simply sharing my perspective on the matter. Part of the reason this stuff is complicated is that this stuff is seriously fucking complicated. Our current methods of scientific peer reviewed studies are meant to look at things in isolation. Cannabis cannot easily be broken down into its individual parts. Studying the parts is not the same as studying the plant. Creating a well-formed study proposal is nearly impossible for cannabis, and thatâs without considering the politics around which studies are approved vs rejected (nearly every study is rejected unless it sets out with the intention of âprovingâ harm).
9 Likes