Marijuana being 3x potent than in 1980's

Smoker's Lounge
,
#41

Personally without indica I can’t get up to do those jobs at all. I’ve tried sativa for it and I’m not able to.
Everyone’s different and sativa required way too much for the effects needed to get through my day.

Maybe you’re all smoking too much indica thinking you need as much as sativa, but you really don’t. A few puffs beat smoking 2-3 joints of what my body considers lows regardless of frosty buds or how high my friends get.

All sativa does is make me feel energetic and that’s too much for me. I’ll take my caffeine for the exact same effect thank you very much.

Try smoking a puff or 2 off a chillum instead of a big ass joint or blunt? To get to my functional state I barely need any indica bud. To get to a point I can walk without wobbling and catching my footing since my lower back no longer works properly I need multiple joints, bowls, blunts, or a macro dose of an edible that has little to no CBD in it.

In the end my point is Indica doesn’t work the same for everyone. I still can get high with CBD just fine and it doesn’t “block the high” in the slightest. Maybe what I consider high isn’t what you do.

If I want to trip I’ll just eat some cubes. Finished in a month vs half a year is an easy sell for me if all I want is a trippy high.

3 Likes
#42

For me, in the 80s there was only dried out brick weed filled with seeds, not very strong so everyone smoked the very good hash that was about. By the time that went bad and basically turned into road tar mixed with henna in the early 90s, there were pockets of people growing and the weed available then if grown properly was comparable to weed today.

2 Likes
#43

Well by 84’ I was smoking 3 years already and it was around that time we started getting that super skunky, lime green, red hair bud that I took for granted then and have been searching for ever since about 93’, but yes definitely weed was more magical in a sense back then to me. I guess set and setting have so much to do with it. And I totally agree on the numbers game, which I myself have been guilty of lately since just getting my medical card in Nov and having the luxury to pice from a menu. Not something I’ve had the pleasure to do for 25 years since my last trip to A’dam back in 94’. I should just stick with my gut and get the afgahni testing at 14% and not be such a chaser jumping on the grape pie that was testing at 29% and barely catching a buzz lol!

4 Likes
#44

No couch lock indicas for me; too much to do.

3 Likes
#45

Then don’t smoke till couchlock?:sweat_smile:

#46

Show me a strain that’s sativa that helps with pain and psychosis and I’ll eat my words. So far all sativa’s make people think I’m on Coke.

Indicas actually allow me to move without feeling my spine move over itself grinding.

On average sativa’s have the same problem as opiates with me. Pain on average gets worse and that’s what couchlocks me. Then there’s the racing thoughts I smoke to get rid of made worse. IDK maybe my body chemistry is doing what it did with meds as a kid and giving me opposite effects

1 Like
#47

Salutations LeftHandSeeds,

I have a tough time sorting out if weed has changed…

There used to be some possibly related hint available via a 2017 article published on Leafly:

Notice how the 2 main THC-centric (horiz. “criminal”/“recreational”) constellations look so much denser, besides 2 somewhat diluted clusters corresponding to CBD-only and 1:1 (“medical”) genetic categories. Now pay closer attention to a most abysmal void in the 2:1, 3:1 and even 4:1 regions…

IMO it’s all the obvious result of human intervention driven by decades of socio-toxic (bigot anti-cannabic prohibitionist) influence, while the United Nations is the root of its real power, e.g. outside our own democratic environment, etc., etc.

…if you’ve ever smoked a 50/50 THC/CBD strain, you get less than “half as high”.

Indeed and that’s no trivial detail now that we’re supposed to have entered a “legal” era…

Actually i recently decided i had waited long enough to visit Québec’s nearest SQdC store, so once i got there the matter of THC/CBD ratio quickly lead me to one simple observation: either it’s practically bi-polar (similar to the radar map shown above…) or the clerk simply failed to provide proper information despite a clear request for 2:1 or 3:1 ratios as i eventually went out with 3.5 g of their “best match”, nonetheless:

Tweed (K7A 0A8) Penelope, packaged on January 25, labelled to contain 7.76 % THC and 6.12 % CBD!

…

In conclusion the legal “offer” somehow happens to be specifically designed to promote extremes with ZERO focus on unexplored potential alternatives where just a tiny bit (4 ~ 5 %) of CBD still won’t badly affect the main ingredient (say 12 ~ 15 %) THC, while maybe even enhancing its value by virtue of the “entourage” effect - which would prove contrary to self-serving politics fighting so-called “banalisation”, whatever, etc. So they can push price-tags up and over-tax us too, then collect contaminated statistics… Amen!

It’s OKay to expect THC-centrism from an underground distribution network addressing the needs of clients who’s main criteria always been a quest for the perfect “buzz”, not to mention it’s a potential “fidelisation” factor (…) in a truly competitive context. Consequently i just fail to grasp the Public Health logic behind SQdC’s strategy if any.

Welcome to Prohibition v2.0!

…

Good day, have fun!! :peace:

8 Likes
#48

Thanks for sharing that plot. I hadn’t seen that before, but it’s really fascinating.

Right now, my working hypothesis on all of this is more of a receptor point of view. It might be simplistic or naive, but I think it’s at least more accurate than simply looking at total THC/CBD percentages.If you consider that your body has a finite number of endocannabinoid receptor sites – and that THC and CBD can both occupy the same receptors – then some things start to add up.

Let’s say you have 100 receptor sites for a cannabinoid molecule. If you have a THC strain with zero CBD, then in theory you could eventually smoke enough to saturate all 100 receptors with psychoactive THC. If you had a 1:1 strain, then when your receptors are saturated, only 50% of the sites are now occupied by a psychoactive molecule. So the effect is far different, and the “ceiling” for the high with that strain is also much different.

Alternatively, if you had 2 strains – 1 with 10% THC and 1 with 20% THC (and proportionally equal amounts of CBD or all other things), then the 10% strain might not actually seem any different, other than the fact that you would need to consume twice as much to achieve the same effect. That is why I tend to put very little importance on that number alone. As a home grower, the quantity I need to consume to get to a desired high is nearly irrelevant… especially when virtually any strain sold these days is within a factor of 2 of some of the most potent strains.

In some ways, I believe CBD could also be used as a “safety net” of sorts, to limit the psychoactivity of the strain. It could in theory be a better way to introduce newcomers and patients to the effects of the plant. Unlike alcohol or all other toxic drugs, the effect on the body is not a simple function of the quantity or strength of consumption. Because it’s a cohesive neural effect that works with the body and not against it, it should not be presented in the same way. Percentages on the label can be very misleading, and I’d wager that very few people think of THC% any differently than ABV% at the liquor store.

To me, one of the biggest shortcomings of legalization is a failure to properly understand what a cannabis high is, scientifically or even observationally. Instead, we have uneducated lawmakers treating it like alcohol, even when basic differences can already be clearly observed even without the underpinning research (which has been restricted by the DEA).

6 Likes
#49

Hi again LeftHandSeeds!

It’s amazing how we seem to share multiple perspectives in common.

Personally i came to interpret decades of extreme THC-centric selection as one probable source of VILIFICATION which combined to the main cigarette/“joint” consumption method only aggravates this already serious issue. My question is this: would so-called “addiction” even justify mis-guided/damaging 3rd-party interventions if legally-vulnerable youth could at least borrow health-wise alternatives from an environment built by adults for adults. I’m naturally refering to vaporism vs smoking and 2:1 / 3:1 / 4:1 THC/CBD genetics for starters…

And there may be more still awaiting consideration as i was once told that my “Shortest Path of Lesser Transformation” (consumption method) could happen to pave the way for partly (un)modiffied cannabinoïds release, in presence of less “activation” heat than if using an “Ovenizer”.

As i recall THC precursors have strong anti-inflamatory properties, for example. So i suppose maybe a very same cannabic sample used in 2 radically different vaporizers can meet as many different expectations.

Good day, have fun!! :peace:

2 Likes
#50

i can relate. In Amsterdam i smoked some GN-13 x AK-47 i got from the Grasshopper, and stayed awake all night peeping out the window people watching. My paranoia was crazy…in between window peeping i was checking my sleeping husband to see if he was still breathing. Crazy shit. Sativas are cerebral and can make you super self aware, therefor if you are in pain, it could make it worse. But what is totally amazing is the same plant has the indica species as well. IMO your body chemistry is fine, you just got ahold of some serious sativa.