Post #388,638
4/16/14 1:11:00 PM
|
More reliable than the over-cooked data we get these days.
|
Post #388,639
4/16/14 1:24:54 PM
|
Eh, if you say so.
|
Post #388,640
4/16/14 1:38:55 PM
|
See your example above.
|
Post #388,643
4/16/14 2:14:41 PM
|
why?
It's got facts in it.
The fact that said facts contradict your anecdote is neither here nor there.
If you doubt the data, show how it's wrong.
Otherwise you're just telling stories and agreeing with yourself: which is fine, but saying "ooh he's cooked the figures because his findings contradict my anecdote" is daft in the extreme.
This is the kind of analysis that woomongers of all stripes employ.
|
Post #388,644
4/16/14 2:31:36 PM
|
My experience is not in any way contradicted by that data.
The fact that the quoted data display absurd increases in strength does not in any way contradict the probability that honest analysis would show more modest increases in strength have indeed occurred.
With all those growers selecting for the best varieties, as well as market pressures, it would be absurd to presume improvement in the actual strength of the product has not occurred.
|
Post #388,646
4/16/14 2:41:35 PM
|
Re: My experience is not in any way contradicted by that dat
Read it again.
|
Post #388,648
4/16/14 3:01:57 PM
|
The figures in the article show more than doubling . . .
. . in strength within 10 years.
That's in England. I suspect the increase is even more here in California where growing the stuff is a significant industry and the best imports fetch a good price.
|
Post #388,665
4/17/14 1:08:23 AM
|
Cherry-picking data is fun!
There is, of course, exceptionally strong cannabis to be found in some parts of the UK market today: but there always has been. The United Nations Drug Control Program has detailed vintage data for the UK online. In 1975 the LGC analysed 50 seized samples of herbal cannabis: 10 were from Thailand, with an average potency of 7.8%, and the highest was 17%. In 1975 they analysed 11 samples of seized cannabis resin, 6 from morocco, average strength 9%, with a range from 4% to 16%.
To get their scare figure, The Independent have compared the worst cannabis from the past with the best cannabis of today. But you could have cooked the books in exactly the same way 30 years ago if youÂd wanted: in 1975 the weakest herbal cannabis analysed was 0.2%; in 1978 the strongest herbal cannabis was 12%. Oh my god: in just 3 years herbal cannabis has become 60 times stronger.
Point being that a single anecdote (or even a handful) tells you nothing.
|
Post #388,668
4/17/14 5:12:18 AM
|
And you cherry pick quite insistently.
You continue to concentrate on that one paragraph that shows how you can "prove" anything you want - but you totally ignore the actual data.
The charts and table clearly show a doubling of the strength of the product as captured by the authorities (the average product available in England) over a recent 10 year period.
Of course, back in the time of my experiences, the pot industry was at a much earlier stage and certainly on a much steeper portion of the cost improvement curve. The rate of improvement over time was probably greater, and my samplings were over a longer period.
|
Post #388,669
4/17/14 8:09:51 AM
|
Availability! You are both right.
Before the common availability of HID lighting, very few people in the world had access to high potency cannabis. You got whatever was shipped into your region, and it was almost always seedy. Outdoor sinsimilla grows were rare. Genetics were haphazard. And there was no legal seed distribution.
But those with the best strains in the best regions could grow the best cannabis, and a single hit would make you fall over. I am talking 30 years ago.
Today anyone can setup a grow room with a couple of MH/HPS lights, order a packet of seeds, and grow exactly the same level of quality of the best of the best from back then.
Sure, selective breeding has made it possible to get a bit stronger, but with diminishing returns. It is a few percentage points, not doubling again and again. That's just silly.
|
