Post #388,625
4/16/14 10:42:49 AM
|
On the strength of cannibinoids and their delivery mechanism
http://www.badscienc...3/reefer-badness/
Entertaining quote:
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.
And in fact, whatÂs most amazing is that this scare isnÂt new. In the US, in the mid 1980s, during ReaganÂs Âwar on drugsÂ, it was claimed that cannabis was 14 times stronger than in 1970, which rather sets you thinking. If it was 14 times stronger in 1986 than in 1970, and itÂs 25 times stronger today than the beginning of the 1990s, does that mean it is now, in fact, 350 times stronger than 1970?
ThatÂs not even a crystal in a plant pot. ThatÂs impossible. That would require more THC to be present in the plant than the total volume of space taken up by the plant itself. That would require matter to be condensed. If I was a physics-minded branding manager, I would suggest Quark Gluon Plasma as the most appropriate street name for this substance: and I look forward to reading about the scare in the Independent tomorrow.
|
Post #388,634
4/16/14 12:10:42 PM
|
Well, that is certainly true . . .
. . and a textbook case of "Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure".
My judgment is first hand - from taking a few puffs on passed joints with no effect except a rough throat - then some 15 years later having about the same number of puffs and driving home on instruments.
|
Post #388,637
4/16/14 12:49:45 PM
|
Anecdotes aren't data
But whatever.
|
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.
|
Post #388,700
4/17/14 7:39:27 PM
|
please explain "driving home on instruments"
One of the things I always heard (but never experienced) was that creative types used pot to enhance creativity. I never considered myself a creative type, so I generally ignored that aspect. Sure, I could free associate better to help with a problem, but that was different.
Then about a year ago I smoked what I considered "too much". I had to lie down to just get past it. As I was lying there, I closed my eyes. And saw the most amazing "closed eye visuals" that I'd ever experienced, accompanied by incredible music. The visuals were full color very detailed movie like, the music was orchestral and complex. It was totally new, nothing I'd seen or heard before. Then I understood what they meant. If I was a musician or a movie director I'd be transcribing as fast as I could.
|
Post #388,702
4/17/14 7:43:04 PM
|
Re: please explain "driving home on instruments"
I had no real feeling for the vehicle, my speed or directional stability - so I paid very close attention to the speedometer and the lines painted on the road. Visual was still working to that extent.
|
Post #388,703
4/17/14 7:45:29 PM
4/17/14 7:47:15 PM
|
yep, understood. floating along, paying CLOSE attention
That's when you turn the music off, don't want any distractions.
Of course my dad's caddy felt like that all the time. Driving on a well padded couch.
Edited by crazy
April 17, 2014, 07:47:15 PM EDT
|
Post #388,707
4/17/14 8:02:21 PM
|
Just as a point of reference . . .
. . the subject event was in 1982 - the celebration for Gloria Molina's election to the California State Assembly - out in Santa Monica.
She was the first Latina elected to the state legislature. It's recently been proposed she run for Mayor of Los Angeles.
|
Post #388,662
4/16/14 6:50:49 PM
|
in the old days
We had crap Tennessee green, decent Mexican, good Columbian, ass kicking thai-stick, and mind blowing Hawaiian.
In the last couple of years the norm seems to be a bit better than the Columbian and occasionally hitting Thai-stick. If you are willing to spend double, you can get to Hawaiian level.
It seems to be a matter of availability. In the old days, you'd see Hawaiian level once a year. Now it is simply a matter of knowing the right person and having the cash to blow.
|
