Shutn up about kush

[BSIv2.0]

I thought this thread was about Kush.

 

[theexpress]

I thought this thread was about Kush.

it is........

 

[LouisXIII]

If you had read any of the other links I put up, you would see that that statement has been widely discredited and even the DEA has backed away from it. Since 1% is the legal THC limit for hemp, can you tell me what all the hippies were going to jail for? The 1% statement from the Mississippi project has also been discredited.

Arthritis did you say? How's the diaper rash junior?

Statistically speaking, you would be considered very lucky to have tasty and potent cannabis of Mexican or Columbian origins in the yester years. I'm not saying it wasn't around, I am just using statistics. It is only common sense to know this, as it is human nature to evolve and create bigger and better things. Selective breeding and education has allowed us to create the monster cannabis of 2010. The fact is that again "statistically" speaking the average American could only get their hands on average cannabis. Please do not misinterpret me as you very well could have smoked quality back then. All I am saying is statistically you had to be one of the lucky ones. The cannabis that is being grown today is "by far" superior than the cannabis I grew and could obtain in the 70's. Possibly, you are just reminiscing the past and glorifying your memories. I too smoked cannabis in the 70's and giggled like a little school girl the first few times and said "this is the best smoke ever". Then every once in a while would get a strain worth smoking and get a couchlock buzz. However, I will admit the average of "quality" cannabis going around is far greater today.

BTW, please do not take offense. As I respect your opinion, I just wanted to add some insight.

 

[ValleGrown]

Obviously we have come to the consensus that kerovan and all these old hippies just live in shitty neighborhoods with schwagg. That's why they've seen the steady decrease in potency. Gee willakers BATMAN!!!

 

[MrCanada]

Lots of people here in Canada who are selling dope like to call their stuff "Kush". I doubt if it all is, they probably don't understand what their talking about. They're just trying to get some extra dollars for their stuff.

 

[LouisXIII]

Lots of people here in Canada who are selling dope like to call their stuff "Kush". I doubt if it all is, they probably don't understand what their talking about. They're just trying to get some extra dollars for their stuff.

Your are right....I recently posted a thread about this. Idiots run around lying about their bud so they can tax. Problem is they do that too many times and someone gets pissed and shoots them over it. This one person I know thinks "Dro" is a strain, and when I tried to explain that "DRO" is just short for Hydro and just a method to grow cannabis he called me a retard. Kind of Funny, because he is selling Low grade Mids for $280 a half and telling the buyers he has '"Kush". He takes the buyers money and walks out w/ the mids and the buyer gets super bent out of shape. Then they come to me talking about how they want to shoot the liar for saying he had Bberry Kush or something similar and taxing the hell out of it. Needless to say, his "Kush" lies have created a huge hate list for himself.

Too bad Dr. Dre, Will I AM, 50 cent are rapping about "Kush". Now all the wannabees are saying all their smoke is "Kush" to sound cool.

 

[DaLeftHandMan]

I don't think that it hasn't or couldn't, I think besides people in this thread saying of course it has, no one has shown one study confirming that. No matter how many times you spout your opinion, it doesn't make it fact. I've posted a scientific study, and a couple of articles that say the incredible increase in THC is a myth. Somebody post something to back up your position.

One other point...I, and several of the other posters in this thread have smoked both. I've grown and smoked some serious shit recently that was probably some of the best weed ever. But I've smoked stuff in the seventies that was it's equal. See, since I've smoked both, I can compare. If you haven't, you have no basis for comparison and your opinion comparing the two just isn't worth shit.

What has happened though is that I now have a wider variety of excellent weed to choose from. There is no argument about that.

lol ok. well youll get a much more mature conversation outta me then most of the kids here. no need for name calling or age reference..im no spring chicken myself.lol

I most certainly can see your point as..comparative angles and reference across time spans...BUT! what ide like to point out, is that evolution and change we ALL share:

i.e: Do you still like candy as much as you did back in your days? ill tell ya what, i used to eat the shit outta it..best stuff ever! buuut..as time went on, my tastes and pallete changed and what i couldnt stop eating THEN, makes me wanna gag NOW.ones perception never stays the same as time and experience and life temper their minds and bodies,im sure you can find many articles,scientifically,to support that fact.also, what makes you think that if you smoked the same grass back then, NOW..that youd be as impressed?

I respect the scientific approach your taking..ide like you to point me to some of those articles! i love a good read! but i cant see this TRUELY being a matter of scientific approach..yes you can measure levels and potencies all day..but..measure ones mental physiological and emotional reactions to the THC compared to anothers..and anothers..AND anothers..SCIENCE hardens facts and solidifies theory. the HUMAN component only ensures that that X factor, will never make the "study"...scientific.

just some opinions i spouted off. lol

 

[ValleGrown]

I second that. the physiological chAnge that takes into affect after life "tempers the body mind and soul" one will never be truly CHANGED by marijuana. as it continues to change itself.

 

[GoldenGanja13]

Ever read HIGH TIMES quarterly report? It's all about the Kush, every time.

 

[skunky33]

I am glad we can agree that their is now an excellent variety of killer cannabis. However, I thought you might find this source interesting:

Pot is 10 to 20 times stronger.
In 1974, the average THC content of marijuana was less than 1 percent. But by 1999, potency averaged 7 percent.
Today’s sinsemilla … averages 14 percent and ranges as high as 30 percent.
The point is that the potency of available marijuana has not merely ‘doubled,’ but increased as much as 30 times.
- John P. Walters, Former White House Drug Czar

Marijuana is more potent than at any time since scientific analysis of the drug began in the 1970s, according to a report from the University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project. The average amount of THC in marijuana, the primary psychoactive ingredient in the drug, was tested at 9.6% --more than double the potency of marijuana in 1983.

The highest concentration of THC found in a single sample was 37.2%.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2008/06/marijuana-more.html

We all know this entire article is Bullshyt. In the 70's and 80's cops were in a mad frenzy pulling up ditch weed all over the country than putting up headlines like "100,000 Pounds of...." In N. Illinois that crap was growing on the side of every other cornfield and driving through the country you'd see police cars parked tearing plants out the ground pretty consistently and people were selling this crap too. I'd say 90% of "drug's seized" in the USA was ditch weed, that's where you get the "under 1%"

Back in the day there was a lot of crappy weed. Now a days there is just less crappy weed. Northern Lights was back in the late 70's with THC of up to 22% and there were definitely pure landrace genetics that had more THC.

 

[PlantManBee]

Back in the day there was a lot of crappy weed. Now a days there is just less crappy weed. Northern Lights was back in the late 70's with THC of up to 22% and there were definitely pure landrace genetics that had more THC.

bingo! ON AVERAGE weed is more potent today.... but if you had buddha hook ups you know that shit was the bomb!

 

[Brick Top]

The end of what you said explains your preference, that being couch-lock. To a true sativa lover the strains that most indica and mostly indica cross lovers would call a sativa, isn't anywhere close to being a sativa.

Basically it appears we have hit a point in the road where whatever is the hottest strain at the moment defines the very highest quality herb that has ever been, regardless to which direction the majority preference swings from ones personal preference taking what's 'best' further and further from your personal likes and dislikes.

That's clearly what many people seem to believe anyway, oh there is also that, wherever in the entire world or by whoever around the entire world actually created the strain that's the hottest, the strain was actually originally created by some guy in California. That's another popular one.

 

[ValleGrown]

I nevr said you didn't have chronic back In the day. Just pretty much stated you have or had to be lucky. Its bull headed of you to sit here and antagonize an argument on a thread that is discussing kush. Not specific landrace strains fromthe sixties and seventies. That WERE dank

 

[bud monsta]

ive grown special kush twice and recomend it

 

[theexpress]

The end of what you said explains your preference, that being couch-lock. To a true sativa lover the strains that most indica and mostly indica cross lovers would call a sativa, isn't anywhere close to being a sativa.

Basically it appears we have hit a point in the road where whatever is the hottest strain at the moment defines the very highest quality herb that has ever been, regardless to which direction the majority preference swings from ones personal preference taking what's 'best' further and further from your personal likes and dislikes.

That's clearly what many people seem to believe anyway, oh there is also that, wherever in the entire world or by whoever around the entire world actually created the strain that's the hottest, the strain was actually originally created by some guy in California. That's another popular one.

my dear freind bricktop!!! anything hot at this moment, is better then any of those strains you guys are talking about that defined your "era"

 

[dam612]

kush....reminds of annoying stoner kids on call of duty and little wayne, [ku$h]420potsmker, both of which im not fond of. Now a days eveything is said to be kush, but only those who know that tell tale kush smell know 99% of the talk is bullshit to market their bud

 

[RawBudzski]

Kush 100% Indica. 500 an Oz. Some Laboratory Shyt. Here in southern cali some Dispensaries have grow ops worth over 50k. With Equipment that was not around in the 70s. I understand every1 has their own opinion on bud but I personally think Diff Buds in Diff Locations and Im just happy im here in cali where its not only taken seriously, legal, abundant. But you also have that State of the Art bud ^_^ ..

 

[Brick Top]

my dear freind bricktop!!! anything hot at this moment, is better then any of those strains you guys are talking about that defined your "era"

Being a fad does not make something better. Were Chia pets actually better than real pets just because they were outselling real pets for a while? How about the pet rock? It outsold real pets for a while, did that make it a better pet?

There was a time that if it was not Jamaican it was crap, it was unacceptable, it was not good at all. Then at some point Hawaiian strains held the top spot for 'flavor of the month' strains. Chronic was all people talked about for a good while and of course skunk was it for a long time in many areas. If it was said to be skunk that equated to quality. Other strain types have had their turn but while some were very good they were not always the best, they were just the ones that were presently most popular.

Plus many of the strains that carry Kush in their name are no more a true Kush than I am Santa Claus. Purists like the Haze Brothers knew it took certain sativa strains to create a true Haze, not just some mutt pairing with something that at least had some Haze in it added being enough to call it a Haze.

The same is true about 'Kush' strains. Most just carry the name for marketing purposes and not because they genetically deserve it. It doesn't matter if it is a dispensary or some guy you purchase bags from, they know if 'Kush' is in the name, while it is presently popular, it will sell better and bring a higher price.

You are all just caught up in one of the many fads that have hit over the decades, and just like in each of those cases those in love with whatever the 'flavor of the month' were positive they were smoking the very best of the very best ... that is until something else took top 'flavor of the month' status away from their chosen fad strain. I wonder what all of you will be calling the best when the 'Kush flavor of the month' fad ends and something else takes its place? Will you stand by Kush strains and claim they are the best or will you move on to the next fad and say it's the best ever?

anything hot at this moment, is better then any of those strains you guys are talking about that defined your "era"

Were you alive and getting high in the 60's and 70's? What frame of reference do you have that compares to the people who have gotten high since the 60's and who have actually sampled the various different strains from the 60's until today?

You have urban legends and myths and the dubious claims of the egotistic 'Dutch Masters' and highly skewed government test results where the testing procedure for determining the level of THC in cannabis was altered resulting in a massive recorded increase in THC levels that did not actually occur, and more, and that is all.

But in your opinion those things give you a more accurate appraisal and opinion of what various strains throughout the decades have been like than those of us who were alive and toking during those periods of time and who have actually smoked the various strains could ever begin to know, right?

You know better than anyone who has sampled the various strains mentioned because unlike them, you have never smoked any of them ... so that is why you know better, right? Your total lack of experience with the strains being mentioned makes you an expert on them and it means the real life experiences those like myself had with them are utterly meaningless, right? It is also meaningless to you that the testing procedure to determine THC levels in cannabis was changed, it was altered in a way that gave an instant large increase in THC level to any and every strain tested, and that is, as I said, totally meaningless to you, right? You will never allow any of those facts or truths to matter to you in the least because you want things to be the way you want and need them to be and things would be different if you accepted the facts and truth, right?

 

[theexpress]

Being a fad does not make something better. Were Chia pets actually better than real pets just because they were outselling real pets for a while? How about the pet rock? It outsold real pets for a while, did that make it a better pet?

There was a time that if it was not Jamaican it was crap, it was unacceptable, it was not good at all. Then at some point Hawaiian strains held the top spot for 'flavor of the month' strains. Chronic was all people talked about for a good while and of course skunk was it for a long time in many areas. If it was said to be skunk that equated to quality. Other strain types have had their turn but while some were very good they were not always the best, they were just the ones that were presently most popular.

Plus many of the strains that carry Kush in their name are no more a true Kush than I am Santa Claus. Purists like the Haze Brothers knew it took certain sativa strains to create a true Haze, not just some mutt pairing with something that at least had some Haze in it added being enough to call it a Haze.

The same is true about 'Kush' strains. Most just carry the name for marketing purposes and not because they genetically deserve it. It doesn't matter if it is a dispensary or some guy you purchase bags from, they know if 'Kush' is in the name, while it is presently popular, it will sell better and bring a higher price.

You are all just caught up in one of the many fads that have hit over the decades, and just like in each of those cases those in love with whatever the 'flavor of the month' were positive they were smoking the very best of the very best ... that is until something else took top 'flavor of the month' status away from their chosen fad strain. I wonder what all of you will be calling the best when the 'Kush flavor of the month' fad ends and something else takes its place? Will you stand by Kush strains and claim they are the best or will you move on to the next fad and say it's the best ever?


Were you alive and getting high in the 60's and 70's? What frame of reference do you have that compares to the people who have gotten high since the 60's and who have actually sampled the various different strains from the 60's until today?

You have urban legends and myths and the dubious claims of the egotistic 'Dutch Masters' and highly skewed government test results where the testing procedure for determining the level of THC in cannabis was altered resulting in a massive recorded increase in THC levels that did not actually occur, and more, and that is all.

But in your opinion those things give you a more accurate appraisal and opinion of what various strains throughout the decades have been like than those of us who were alive and toking during those periods of time and who have actually smoked the various strains could ever begin to know, right?

You know better than anyone who has sampled the various strains mentioned because unlike them, you have never smoked any of them ... so that is why you know better, right? Your total lack of experience with the strains being mentioned makes you an expert on them and it means the real life experiences those like myself had with them are utterly meaningless, right? It is also meaningless to you that the testing procedure to determine THC levels in cannabis was changed, it was altered in a way that gave an instant large increase in THC level to any and every strain tested, and that is, as I said, totally meaningless to you, right? You will never allow any of those facts or truths to matter to you in the least because you want things to be the way you want and need them to be and things would be different if you accepted the facts and truth, right?

if being a fad doesnt make something better then why you tryna grip nutts so hard to the strains from the 70's? lol

 

[guy incognito]

The myth that pot somehow increased in potency is an outright lie and anyone that believes that lie is an idiot. The first LAW of thermodynamics states that "The universe is tending to disorder, rather than disorder." That is pure science; things do not "get better"; they get worse - period. If you throw a piece of stainless steel out into the elements, it breaks down into iron, carbon, nickel, chromium, etc; it does not "evolve" into titanium. Even if you believe in this miracle of evolution whereby, through breeding a plant with 12% and one with 16%, how does that make one with 22% - or even 17%. It doesn't; by all logic it would yield 16% at best and more likely 14%. Argue all you want; I know the truth. BTW, if you can smoke 1/4 zip a day, it's ragweed; you could not smoke 1/4 zip a week of some of the sativas "back in the day". I have a theory: Pot was not trimmed "back in the day" the way it is today - very closely. So, if they were counting all the sweet leaf, rather than just the pure flowers, it could indeed skew the results.

Actually the first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It is the second law of thermodynamics that states the entropy of a CLOSED system always increases. Marijuana is not a closed a system though, you are adding energy to it. You can decrease the entropy of a system by adding energy to it (which by definition means it is NOT closed, it is open). This is how things can go from disordered (high entropy) to ordered (low entropy). Think about it, that smoke which you are smoking is nothing more than carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen (and a few other elements) that started off as simple molecules, but are now combined in a highly ordered fashion giving you the finest ganja. It took lots of energy to make it that way though.

If you go back in history you will eventually find an ancestor of the marijuana you are currently smoking that contained 0% THC. Now however many generations into the future and you have some level of THC, the exact amount I don't know, but I am positive its a non zero amount. Therefore THC content has increased with time, at least on a long term time scale.

As for it increasing from the 70's until now...I don't know. I wasn't even alive in the 70's. I never smoked the herb until about 2003. That being said, it doesn't make much sense to me that a plant was cultivated for thousands and thousands of years by nearly every culture, and somehow only in the last 30 years has the potency skyrocketed. Seems kind of self centered to think we somehow made huge advancements of growing a plant that was cultivated more times before any of you were born than your brain could even possibly comprehend. Especially since most people seem to be subjectively judging it.