IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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.
New 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.
     One for Mike: Regular pot use tied to brain changes. - (Another Scott) - (34)
         From my observations back in the day when . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (18)
             On the strength of cannibinoids and their delivery mechanism - (pwhysall) - (17)
                 Well, that is certainly true . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (15)
                     Anecdotes aren't data - (pwhysall) - (10)
                         More reliable than the over-cooked data we get these days. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                             Eh, if you say so. -NT - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                 See your example above. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                                     why? - (pwhysall) - (6)
                                         My experience is not in any way contradicted by that data. - (Andrew Grygus) - (5)
                                             Re: My experience is not in any way contradicted by that dat - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                 The figures in the article show more than doubling . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                                     Cherry-picking data is fun! - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                                         And you cherry pick quite insistently. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                                             Availability! You are both right. - (crazy)
                     please explain "driving home on instruments" - (crazy) - (3)
                         Re: please explain "driving home on instruments" - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                             yep, understood. floating along, paying CLOSE attention - (crazy) - (1)
                                 Just as a point of reference . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                 in the old days - (crazy)
         Thanks. - (mmoffitt) - (11)
             Depends on how it's done. "Just Say No" didn't work. -NT - (Another Scott) - (10)
                 Perhaps I give young people too much credit. - (mmoffitt) - (9)
                     Inaccuracies? - (Andrew Grygus)
                     Developing vs developed brains - (rcareaga) - (7)
                         Anecdotes are as good as science. Film at 11. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                             The plural of "anecdote" is "data" -NT - (drook) - (4)
                                 Conversely, all data is anecdotal in nature. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                     And don't forget the observer effect, right Scott? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                         Good instruments and techniques reduce that. ;-) -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     Spoilsport!! - (Ashton)
                             It's hard to have good science when research is hindered. - (Another Scott)
         Where are the studies about alcohol? - (gcareaga) - (2)
             and you can be sure - (crazy) - (1)
                 yup, edible loses again - (crazy)

Yay! You got a... thing.
53 ms