Wolverine97
Well-Known Member
I figured as much, so I didn't bother asking any more.
thanks though
thanks though
Does Smoking Weed Kill Brain Cells?
- Thread starter Icyblaze
- Start date
B.U.D.S.I.C.L.E.S
Member
I want to mention that any lack of motivation, or laziness after a toke sesh could also be due to the actual combustion byproducts like CO2, CO, etc...
When I vaporize a bowl of a sativa dominant strain, I feel like I could win a marathon or build the eiffel tower with my eyes closed.
Of course with any "drug", your state of mind, and environment have a lot to do with the outcome of your high. I've been paranoid several times before, BUT this has been due to the fact I shouldn't be smoking (be really high) at that particular time (family, cops)
I personally find I get very depressed over the winter months here in Canada. MJ has always enlightened my spirits and I can't count a single time I've ever been "down" from smoking herb.
When I vaporize a bowl of a sativa dominant strain, I feel like I could win a marathon or build the eiffel tower with my eyes closed.
Of course with any "drug", your state of mind, and environment have a lot to do with the outcome of your high. I've been paranoid several times before, BUT this has been due to the fact I shouldn't be smoking (be really high) at that particular time (family, cops)
I personally find I get very depressed over the winter months here in Canada. MJ has always enlightened my spirits and I can't count a single time I've ever been "down" from smoking herb.
If your stupid it will make you extra stupid If your smart it will make you extra smart 
however lack of oxogen is known to slowly pop them off so the longer you hold that llighter on there buddy the dumber you may become.. Iff you listen close enough you can hear your brain cells crackling when your taking a huge toke :-X!! ahaha
however lack of oxogen is known to slowly pop them off so the longer you hold that llighter on there buddy the dumber you may become.. Iff you listen close enough you can hear your brain cells crackling when your taking a huge toke :-X!! ahaha
Brick Top
New Member
Most most people do not know, and few that learn about it accept, is the testing procedure for levels of THC back in the 60's and 70's was changed and it was the change in how THC was tested that actually resulted in the amazing sudden increase in what appeared to be much higher levels of THC than were found in the past.
THC percentages now, and for some years now, is the amount/the percentage of THC among all cannabinoids. In the 60's and 70's THC was the amount, the percentage of THC found among virtually everything within trichome heads, and not only glandular trichome heads. That means that the glands in trichome heads (plant matter), the plant matter that separates the secretory cavity, and the plastid and vacuole and amino acids, sugars, terpenoids and hormones and virtually anything and everything else found within trichome heads, and again, even ones that were not glandular trichome heads were all included and the THC found was in relation to everything found within any and all trichome heads tested.
Here is an example of a modern strain that was tested using the modern testing procedure and the old. Notice how a strain that under the new testing procedure resulted in there being 21.6% THC and under the old method it resulted in the very same strain being only 7.4% THC.
Strain: Afgan Kush
Breeder: World of Seeds
Location: indoor, outdoor
Type: indica
Flowering: ~50 days
Normal or female seeds
THC Level: 21.6% measured upon the rest of cannabinoids. 7.4% measured upon the rest of organic substances belonging to buds like: amino-acids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones, and cannabinoids (determined by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry)
Did you notice how the exact same strain dropped from being 21.6% THC all the way down to single digits, all the way down to 7.4% just because it was tested using the only testing method? What does that tell you about there being or not being an actual large increase in true levels of THC?
How did the government benefit, at least the U.S. government, or at least a department of it?
I have a cousin that is ex-CIA. While still 'in' his neighbor, and best friend, was a DEA agent. While visiting once the three of us were talking and the subject of the new super-strains of pot came up and the DEA agent laughed and said that "the lie" probably saved his job and the jobs of many in the DEA and kept DEA funding from being slashed.
As much as it appeared the nation was against marijuana it was seen as being a soft drug and there were far fewer people against it than the government propaganda claimed, and that included some members of government. After events like Woodstock where nearly a half million 'hippies' gathered together, and it was common knowledge that most were high as much of the time there as possible, and also lived their lives that way, and there were no problems there, fights did not break out, women were not raped, stores were not looted, local business people went on and on about how nice and polite the 'kids' were, saying excuse me before asking something and saying please and thank you, the 'soft drug' was becoming to be seen as less and less of a true threat as the hardliners in government had lied and claimed it to be.
The test procedure was altered and suddenly the formerly seen 'soft drug' could be made to appear to darn near be a 'hard drug' and a true gateway drug and possibly even dangerous on it's own. Government funding for the DEA was increased and more DEA jobs were created and other government entities like the Coast Guard and Navy and bits of other military groups were suddenly used to fight against and interdict the new and dangerous super potent strains or marijuana. Of course a new bureaucracy had to be created to coordinate efforts and oversee efforts and report on efforts so that meant larger/bigger government and more control at the federal level.
Something else the DEA agent said was how in the past most pot tested were from very large 'finds,' not busts, but 'finds" of commercial grade pot. A tractor trailer load of cannabis found at a truck stop or in some parking lot where evidently someone was supposed to pick it up. Large unattended outdoor grows that when found were ripped up regardless of stage of growth and if anywhere near 'ripe' or not. Since many times there was no one to put on trial, and even if there were only amount/weight of the find mattered to the prosecution, there was no rush to test the pot. Sometimes it sat for a year or more in government warehouses or under open sided sheds on government land or left in the trailer of the tractor trailer sitting on government land and sometimes stacked like hay and covered by tarps.
It was exposed to light and heat and air, things known to degrade THC, and again, some 'finds' were immature crops, crops that were not 'ripe' but were eventually tested ... and as said sometimes as much as a year or more after being found' and after a good amount of THC degradation would occur.
Depending on what old test results you read you can find claims stating that average THC levels were 1.3% to 3%. Others will say 3% to 5%. In some cases you will find where higher grade pot was tested and the results were in the 9% to 12% range. If they tested in the 9% to 12% range under the old test and a modern strain that came in under the new test at 21.6% and only 7.4% under the the old test, just imagine what the 9% to 12% old strains would have to come in as being if tested using the new test. 29%? 34%? or maybe more? I'm sure someone not as lazy as I am could do the math and figure out what they would likely test out as being, but the point is ..... 1.) the way THC levels were tested was altered in a way that created a false increase in levels of THC. 2.) Tested pot was sometimes left for a year or more in conditions were THC would have degraded. 3.) Some pot tested was immature, not 'ripe,' had been pulled up at some stage of growth prior to being ready to be harvested and it was also stored and later tested and it's levels of THC were factored into the average level of THC of the era.
Today great lengths are taken by some law enforcement groups to assure what they test will result in the highest results possible. I read an article some time back about a bust where samples to be tested were bagged and went right into ice chests and then into cold storage and were tested within days and the results were the pot was found to be 700% higher in THC than any pot of the 60's or 70's. Just try and tell me there isn't, and hasn't been, a smoke and mirrors thing going on since the test procedure changed and the law learned about preserving THC for testing rather than allowing it to degrade over long periods of time under conditions known to degrade THC.
Then of course there is the secret of how even today there are two methods of testing THC levels and the results of each are DRASTICALLY different. There are Calculated Active Cannabinoids and Relative Ratios of Active Cannabinoids.
Super Lemon Haze, a strain we see mentioned here a fair bit, was tested by an independent lab. The THC results for Calculated Active Cannabinoids was 23.98%. The THC results for Relative Ratio of Active Cannabinoids was 9.64%. That is a rather large difference in THC percentages, isn't it?
Is anyone in doubt about which testing procedure 'The Dutch Masters' rely on to advertise the THC percentages of their strains? Who would be impressed if advertised strains had THC percentages in the single digits, and some not even as high as the test results for higher grades of pot from the 60's and 70's came up with?
Wake up and smell the terpenoids people .... you've been fooled, you've been lied to.
People, you have been sold a bill of goods, you have been propagandized and you have gleefully swallowed it hook, line and sinker all because you like, want and need to believe that you are the lucky ones who get to smoke the most potent pot that ever existed.
obijohn
Well-Known Member
I agree about the testing methods making it seem like the weed now is much stronger now than compared to weed decades ago. But I do think weed is much stronger than it was in the 60's and 70's for several reasons. I've smoked since the 60's. back then, a lot of what we got was leaves and crushed (if any) buds) In the 70's it seems there more buds being left intact, although heavily seeded. Unseeded sinsemilla (at least in my area) appeared late 70's and was much better, although the most common and affordable weed was still dry mexican brown. That seemed to change in the last decade or 2 where green seedless bud became the norm.
Now a fair part of the quality improvement is due to the progression mentioned above. But also, breeding for quality/high THC has come a very long way. So in that sense, most green bud these days IS better than it may have been 20 years ago. And with legal dispensaries, people expect top quality, and to compete, the dispensaries can pick and choose what strains and growers to buy
Now a fair part of the quality improvement is due to the progression mentioned above. But also, breeding for quality/high THC has come a very long way. So in that sense, most green bud these days IS better than it may have been 20 years ago. And with legal dispensaries, people expect top quality, and to compete, the dispensaries can pick and choose what strains and growers to buy
Brick Top
New Member
Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. What I told came from a DEA agent, things I have read about how the testing procedure was altered and how pot was poorly stored for long periods waiting to be tested and also the example of a modern strain that was tested using both testing methods where under the new method it tested as having 21.6% THC and only 7.4% THC when tested using the 60's and 70's method of testing.
Now I do not want people to think I am claiming that EVER strain of the 60's and 70's were equally potent, because just like today there were some strains that were very potent and others that were not. On the low end would of course be what people smoked in areas that only had the lowest quality strains. Those were the ones that when tested under the old method would come in around 1.3% THC. But then high end strains were in the 9% to 12% THC range, and that was using a test method that resulted in a modern 21.6% THC strain come in at only 7.4% THC .... so what does that have to tell you about the higher end strains of the 60's and 70's, the 9% to 12%, or higher, THC range strains? That means that if tested using today's testing procedure they would have levels of THC higher than any current modern strain. That means the old strains tested under the old method of testing came in between 1.6% to 4.6% higher than a strain that under the modern tests was found to have 21.6% THC. The same 9% to 12% THC strains is tested using the new procedure would totally blow away the modern 21.6% THC strain in THC percentage.
While some people mainly or only smoked the lowest grade commercial strains in the 60's and the 70's there were some of us that were lucky enough to cut our teeth on and live on strains like Malawi Gold, Colombian Gold, Acapulco Gold, Durban Poison, Dalat (and other Vietnamese strains), Panama Red, Highland Oxacan Gold, various unspecified Thai, Laotian, Jamaican, Cambodian, Burmese and other strains, and those of us who were lucky enough to do so know of incredibly potent those strains were. Compared to those, smoking low grade commercial was like smoking catnip or oregano.
What has definitely improved potency-wise is the average level of potency. The very most potent strains today are not any more potent than strains of the past, and some strains of the past were more potent, but what is totally gone, if dealing with professional breeder genetics anyway, are the real true low potency strains that did exist in the past and were largely what some people in some areas only or mainly had access to. The other difference, that is a big one and one that gets confused with potency, is the variety that now exists. Rather than only having pure landrace sativas, like I cut my teeth on and lived on for so long, or pure indicas, like some people in some parts of the world only had, now we have strains that combine what some see as the best properties or traits of each. That is most definitely a big difference, but then not one that a lover of a pure sativa or a pure indica would care all that much about or be at all impressed with.
What goes along with that though is major redundancy. So many crosses are so genetically similar that if overnight one quarter to one third, or maybe even more, of the strains in the 50/50 to 70/30 range, regardless of if being predominantly indica or sativa in those over 50/50, vanished from the face of the earth there would be no real loss because there would still be many strains left in that range that would be genetically similar enough that no one would have to do without a high or stone they like. Some pretty colors might vanish and a few exotic aromas might cease to exist and someone might not have their favorite Fruity Pebbles flavor, but when it would come to just a high or a stone and level of potency, there would be more than enough strains left to fill the void.
Even if someone, or everyone, does not believe me about past THC levels and potency then just consider the modern era, the era of 'The Dutch Masters' and their super-strains and ask yourself this .... when was the last true big advancement in potency, the last big true jump in potency, how long has it been since a strain has come out that was truly appreciably higher in THC than other strains, a true quantum leap made? After thinking about that one a while ask yourself this. In the last decade, roughly, give or take a handful of years, have we seen a slow but steady year to year stair step-like or ramp-like continual increase in the percentage of THC in the most potent of strains? Or has it been more like most higher potency strains have pretty much remained within a narrow range with only the occasional one that goes just slightly beyond it?
Did the master breeders lose their skills? Did they forget how to breed pot that keeps getting more potent? Did they hit a genetic wall where current breeding capabilities do not allow them to take potency much if any farther than they have already taken it on even a semi-regular basis? Or is it that they just lucked out and came into being right about when the testing procedure changed creating a false massive increase in levels of THC making them appear as if they were/are Ganja Gods, but for the most part all they have ever actually given us was more and more variety until they have now gone way beyond it being a case of overkill?
I of course know and admit that a high is not THC and THC alone and instead is the combination, the mix, the ratio of THC along with other cannabinoids and terpenoids and some will enhance the affects of THC causing a strain that has a lower percentage of THC to be more potent than another that has a higher percentage of THC. But that only goes so far. The true octane is and always has been THC and the rest are what makes it seem a bit more potent or a bit less potent or a speedier or make a high longer or shorter lasting ... but all the cannabinoids and terpenoids in the world cannot make a strain with extremely little THC as potent as another strain with a much higher THC percentage. It's something of a case of how you cannot make chicken salad out of chicken shit no matter how much mayonnaise you add.
makinthemagic
Well-Known Member
no, but believing everything you hear does kill brain cells.
sso
Well-Known Member
verrry interesting, thanks.
yeah,,,its what ive been saying for years, if it comes from the government, its gilt plated crap.
same goes for many businesses.
Brick Top
New Member
You should have read more books when you were young, or if you still are young you should be reading more. My copy of "War and Peace" is 1,472 pages long. Not counting the Epilogue my copy of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" is 1,479 pages long, 1,483 if you count the Epilogue.
After you read a few books like that my messages will seem like short paragraphs by comparison.
poplars
Well-Known Member
well I really love books... I don't like reading in depth on a computer... I should invest in a kindle then maybe I could download your posts to it ahahahah
profgerbik
New Member
no offense but if you seriously had to ask if smoking something kills brain cells, you have lost way too many yourself.
smoking anything destroys brains cells, bumping your head or shaking it, kills brain cells, they are there to be killed. the air we breath for christ sakes is killing our brains cells.
you should worry about that, because almost everything we do on the daily basis kills brain cells.
again you should really know that though, you should also really know inhaling any type of smoke is not good for you. get a vaporizer.
smoking anything destroys brains cells, bumping your head or shaking it, kills brain cells, they are there to be killed. the air we breath for christ sakes is killing our brains cells.
you should worry about that, because almost everything we do on the daily basis kills brain cells.
again you should really know that though, you should also really know inhaling any type of smoke is not good for you. get a vaporizer.
poplars
Well-Known Member
cannabinoids have been proven to grow and protect brain cells.
as long as you don't hold your hits in deep and don't have to take more than 5 rips to get high, you're not doing any significant damage in any way that would ever matter to you.
and while vaporizers are nice, they don't protect you from everything.
Angry Pollock
Well-Known Member
got a masters in accounting and was high a lot
Swag
Well-Known Member
What are you talking about?! After around the age 22 your brain stops producing neurons and slowly begins to lose them every year. If I remember correctly from BBC they said at around age 40-ish you lose an average of 10,000 brain cells a year? I find it hilarious how so many smokers preach about "Don't listen to the governments lies its all propaganda!" while most of your research comes from pro marijuana biased websites, self-fulfilling prophecy ring a bell? Even double blind studies are not always full proof facts, as there are usually thousands of variables that need to be taken into account that cannot always be properly controlled. There also just isn't enough urge to fund successful recreational drug research compared to medicinal (i.e. more important) research. Why even ask such a question on a CANNBIS grow forum did you really expect a plausible outcome? Cannabinoids don't kill brain cells but carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide along with other carcinogens produced when combustion occurs with marijuana does. As the person above me mentioned we lose brain cells all the time. If we didn't why would elderly people experience dementia? The brain is an organ and just like every other constantly working organ it experiences wear and tear after a good 50 years! Nothing is ever built to last and that includes us so you might as well enjoy life while your here. Its a generalization that marijuana does make the brain reward system deregulate after constant smoking because it adapts to the increased amount of neurotransmitter synapses action so the "natural" ways of creating these endogenous neurotransmitters is not seen as necessary so the brain re-adjusts itself to focusing on other important tasks. Now whether or not it will lead to someone being a couch potato is also dependent on a persons predisposed work ethic among other things. Either way marijuana is not deadly in short term or even long term use sure it may be alittle harmful but so is coming home and drinking a few beers after work everyday... no one gets outta here alive anyways... (Let the flaming begin
)
Brick Top
New Member
Pop up books, comic books, Dick and Jane books and books filled mainly with pictures don't really count towards actual book reading.
Try starting out on something short but interesting like; "Tin Cans," a short 437 page book about Destroyers in WWII or maybe "The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler," a nice short 591 page book, or maybe "A Bridge Too Far." That's only 573 pages. You could knock that one out in no time. While it can seem a bit dry at times maybe "Spandau; The Secret Diaries" by Albert Speer would be good. It's only 501 pages long and if you are at all into psychology it is an amazing read, following his thoughts and hopes and emotions over his many years in prison.
Start out with a few beginner books like those and before long you will be ready to tackle long books.
poplars
Well-Known Member
dude I've read books....why couldn't you just take my word for it.... peace
