Mr. Nice Forums  
Home History Strains Media Web Community Medical Marijuana Contact us Auctions

Go Back   MNS Forums > Medicinal plants > 9. Patients forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-12-2012, 04:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 663
Default

Well honestly i am really surprised to see people of this site sit back and almost support the breeding of cannabis to MODERN HEMP that has had its THC breed out of it and as a result render it useless as a drug crop and for it then to be used in breeding for the purpose of medical use is insane.

Some of you really need to do your research honestly.

Quote:
CBD acts as an antagonist at the CB1 receptor and thus alters the psychoactive effects of THC. It appears to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea. CBD has a greater affinity for the CB2 receptor than for the CB1 receptor. CBD shares a precursor with THC and is the main cannabinoid in low-THC Cannabis strains. Two NIH scientists secured a patent on CBD in 2003 when they realized that it is the main cannabinoid which producse an analgesic (pain relieving) effect.

Quote:
CB1 receptors are found primarily in the brain, to be specific in the basal ganglia and in the limbic system, including the hippocampus.[1] They are also found in the cerebellum and in both male and female reproductive systems. CB1 receptors are absent in the medulla oblongata, the part of the brain stem responsible for respiratory and cardiovascular functions. Thus, there is not the risk of respiratory or cardiovascular failure that can be produced by some drugs. CB1 receptors appear to be responsible for the euphoric and anticonvulsive effects of cannabis.

Quote:
Large amounts of CBD acts as a THC antagonist

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
Main article: Tetrahydrocannabinol

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive component of the plant. It appears to ease moderate pain (analgesic) and to be neuroprotective. THC has approximately equal affinity for the CB1 and CB2 receptors.[13]

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC, THC) and delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC), mimic the action of anandamide, a neurotransmitter produced naturally in the body. These two THC's produce the effects associated with cannabis by binding to the CB1 cannabinoid receptors in the brain.

What some of you are failing to get is that the THC % normally found in normal drug crops are important and by reducing the amount of THC to the point it is no longer a drug crop like modern hemp variety's will it in fact reduces the medical value of the plant.

The clear evidence is there go research it i did and brought only a little here i am no expert in this and even those that are still dont hold all the answers that's fact.

Remember Sativex ? well i rember reading reports from many people feeling unwell from using it do you think just maybe it was because some one thort removing a natural component from the plant like THC was a good move so they using it wouldn't get high.


In this video scientists are saying clearly that people will all react differently to different amounts of THC and CBD % so in shot what there telling us is what we all ready knew BEING different people find medicinal and or recreational value in sativas and others find medical and or recreational value in indicas and others find medical or recreational value in indica sativa hybrids.

Indica and Sativa Classification - YouTube


What they say in short is this the turpentine of the plant and the reaction of set plant to each persons physiological profile matters more than what the THC and CBD % dose.



Quote:
The terpinenes are a group of isomeric hydrocarbons that are classified as terpenes. They each have the same molecular formula and carbon framework, but they differ in the position of carbon-carbon double bonds. α-Terpinene has been isolated from cardamom and marjoram oils, and from other natural sources. β-Terpinene has no known natural source, but has been prepared synthetically from sabinene. γ-Terpinene and δ-terpinene (also known as terpinolene) are natural and have been isolated from a variety of plant sources.

The biosynthesis of α-terpinene and other terpenoids occurs via the mevalonate pathway because its starting reactant, dimethylallyl pyrophosphate (DMAPP), is derived from mevalonic acid. Though α-terpinene is commonly considered a perfume and flavoring chemical and therefore used in the cosmetics and food industries, its use both in the pharmaceutical and electronics semi-conductor manufacturing industries have also proven to be valuable.


As for the red eyes being a goal of this breeding project well the truth is like it or not resinbud clearly sed it and that was one of his breeding goals well i hate to say it but i dont normally get red eyes from smoking cannabis as i dont suspect many do but if you did well there's always Vizen red eyes are the lest important part to a sick persons needs.

I have sed it for years smoking indicas make me fill and even if i dont get stoned the ugly feeling most indicas give me is still there and that video i suggest you all see explained it to me finally and know i clearly know why i get anxiety and a feeling of being low from them its the higher CBD % found in them.

Each to there own but please do not let me read uneducated and miss informed information regarding medical cannabis from some of you and then try and tell me your right when its clear you do not have a clue or understand of what your on about.

And then you seek to breed useless medical cannabis that if let loose in the world will degrade further the all ready damaged species left.

Shaking my head in disbelief i may not know all the answers or do i claim to be any type of expert as i to am just starting to research this topic but even the experts still dont hold the answers but what i do know is mother nature dont add or do things for no reason resinbud.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,387
Default

Here's an interesting paper, read the section titled "The Genus Cannabis: Taxonomy and Biochemistry.

http://http://www.naihc.org/hemp_information/content/hemp.mj.html

@Hempy, you're right, no sense in flogging. Jesse posted a post from Shanti that I was thinking about. As far as RB, he can speak for himself.

Here's an interesting chart on terpenes. What I find quite interesting is that cannabis, the species, may be one of the few plants that contain combinations of a vast varieties of terpenoids.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Terpenoids.pdf (246.6 KB, 10 views)
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarijuanaPiranha View Post
Hi Hempy, I'm not sure why you feel you need to stand up and say NO to ResinBud for an experimental breeding. You keep saying he is removing the thc, but he says he wants to have BOTH, a high thc and high cbd level. It seems that you are being a little close minded and very negative. ResinBud isn't asking you to smoke it. If I were him, I would just find a plant in one of the cbd crew seeds, the 1:1 ratio is already there, but I don't think the levels are as high as he is aiming for. But if he wants to breed his own with hemp, then by all means go ahead. Its not like ResinBud is ruining all of medical cannabis for the world.

It makes sense that if you take a high thc variety and breed it with a high cbd variety that a 1/3 of the resulting offspring will have somewhat equal levels of both. But by using hemp, he's going to have to deal with the other issues, such as too much fiber production compared to flower production, lack of terpenes and resins, hermaphroditism, etc...
Really MarijuanaPiranha well did you in fact read what i posted and also take note of what the video sed ? If you did then you would know that cannabis will very a great deal in the % of both THC and CBD from one sativa line to the next and from one indica line to the next and even more so in hybrids.

It also sed now take note here that a strain that is breed with a high CBD % and THC % 1.1 say could be given to 3 people and all 3 will have different medical values from it and all 3 may not benefit at all.

That is because we are all different at a cellular level in fact each one of us is unique i found this out tonight and this is why 1 medication dose not fit all and that alone is an important note to understand.

But were not talking about breeding cannabis are we mate we are talking about breeding cannabis which a drug strain to a modern hemp plant that has had many things breed out of it including THC and as a result it now has no value wat so ever in medical cannabis.

A lot of you some how think grabbing a hemp plant that's so low in THC you could smoke a field of it and it would not get you high because it has a high CBD % in its profile and create medical cannabis strains well it dont work that way and i tried to explane it but it seams people did not read wat i posted or are just selecting to ignore the info presented.

The only value it has is to produce fiber so why cant you and others see this is my question to you all here.

Its not just about the CBD and THC its more to do with the terpinenes they are still only scratching the surface of understanding the complexity of cannabis and how it works as medicine we all know it works but there is lots more to understand yet.

Heres my advice you want to play with 1.1 THC /CBD lines go grab some lines from the CBD crew and grow them test them and play with them and leave the hemp for fiber production as your doing no one any favours lest of all the medical cannabis user.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 663
Default

Thanks for the link Betterhaff il take a look in the next day or so.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-12-2012, 02:55 PM
Andre Linoge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hempy View Post
A lot of you some how think grabbing a hemp plant that's so low in THC you could smoke a field of it and it would not get you high because it has a high CBD % in its profile and create medical cannabis strains well it dont work that way and i tried to explane it but it seams people did not read wat i posted or are just selecting to ignore the info presented.

The only value it has is to produce fiber so why cant you and others see this is my question to you all here.

I am not saying that Resinbud is onto something likely to turn out great but pause a moment and consider what has been done with Ruderalis.

Pure Ruderalis is normally extremely low in THC, pretty much in the same range as industrial hemp, but it is high in CBD.

Many botanists have argued that Ruderalis has been wrongly classified and should be classified as being in the same family group as industrial hemp.

While I detest auto-flowering strains there are some people that love them, some are without doubt potent and some have proven medicinal values.

So why is it out of the realm of possibility that hemp, just like Ruderalis, could be used to make crosses that could have true medicinal value?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
__________________
Born in sin, come on in...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-13-2012, 01:48 AM
donb's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: East of the Mississippi btw 30-45N
Posts: 677
Default

I don't know much about breeding, but can't grasp what value hemp would bring to breeding projects aimed at improving medical (or drug) strains. I think Hempy is correct here just that the delivery is a little crude.

Ruderalis on the other hand does have something to offer to those who desire the auto-flowering trait. The breeder's goal is a drug or medical strain that retains the traits of high resin quantity & high cannabinoids (THC & CBD in a desired ratio) and the trait of auto-flowering. Hemp's contribution in breeding projects would be quite low resin & cannibinoids content, and no other redeeming traits unless one or more now hidden desireable traits would somehow be found in the future. As I see it hemp does appear to be a useless plant to breeding better drug/medical strains, or can anyone explain why its not so according to what we know now? You'd have to restore the high resin/cannabinoids of the drug/medical strain used in a breeding project with hemp, but it seems you'd get nothing out of the bargain from hemp. I'm not sure it's such a trivial task for a breeder to up the absolute quantities of resin/cannabinoids. Everything I've read says that hemp has a quite low quantity of resin, resin with negligable THC and a high CBD:THC ratio, however the CBD content is still very low because the resin quantity is skimpy.

Not being any expert whatsoever in breeding, I have to wonder what the problems and difficulties would be in upping the absolute amount of resin and principle cannabinoids (THC, CBD, THCV, etc) in a plant as a single breeding goal. How long might it take, and is it a reasonable expectation?

Shanti, what do you say about quick ways to increase THC and other cannabinoids in breeding, as a single goal?

Did it not take decades and centuries for cannabis farmers gone by? And if you say that the Dutch masters (and Shanti is an important one though an Aussie) upped the THC and resin content dramatically from the recent past in a short time, well it was suggested to me recently that this is more misunderstanding than fact, as test methods formerly measured cannabinoids against the total weight of the plant matter (stems, leaves, buds and seeds), but now measure them against, I believe, total resin content. Therefore the Dutch masters may or may not be responsible for any actual increase in THC content in our modern crossed strains. To shed further light on this, one would first need to estimate or somehow approximately convert past lab data on, say, the farmer tended landrace strains of the 60s & 70s.
__________________
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the people of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Last edited by donb; 09-13-2012 at 02:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-13-2012, 03:45 AM
Andre Linoge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by donb View Post
Ruderalis on the other hand does have something to offer to those who desire the auto-flowering trait.
Ruderalis does offer the auto-flowering capability, but that is something beyond the point I was making, that being, that Ruderalis, like hemp, is extremely low in THC and but higher in CBD ... and look what has been done with Ruderalis, and that not meaning auto-flowering strains, but not only potency but also medicinal value through the use of Ruderalis.

And that is from something, Ruderalis, that many botanists argue, and firmly believe, was wrongly categorized and is something that actually belongs in the same family grouping as industrial hemp and not the family of cannabis that we all love so much.

Quote:
Did it not take decades and centuries for cannabis farmers gone by? And if you say that the Dutch masters (and Shanti is an important one though an Aussie) upped the THC and resin content dramatically from the recent past in a short time, well it was suggested to me recently that this is more misunderstanding than fact, as test methods formerly measured cannabinoids against the total weight of the plant matter (stems, leaves, buds and seeds), but now measure them against, I believe, total resin content. Therefore the Dutch masters may or may not be responsible for any actual increase in THC content in our modern crossed strains. To shed further light on this, one would first need to estimate or somehow approximately convert past lab data on, say, the farmer tended landrace strains of the 60s & 70s.
As I always understood it, in the past THC content was a percentage measured upon the rest of organic substances belonging to buds, like aminoacids, sugars, terpenoids, vegetal hormones, cannabinoids, terpenoids, flavonoids, etc ... THC was a percentage of virtually anything and everything found within trichome heads of all types.

That was later changed to THC percentages being a percentage measured upon the rest of cannabinoids only.

All the rest was removed from the equation, the rest was no longer part of the testing procedure so it played no longer played any role or in any way factored into the THC percentage. By removing the rest it created a false increase in THC percentages.

An example is Colombian Gold tested using the old/original THC testing method resulted in a THC level of 7.8%, but when tested using the newer testing method the result was a THC level of 19.3%.

There was what appeared to be an 11.5% increase in THC when in fact there was no actual increase in THC. The only difference was everything other than cannabinoids were no longer factored in so they did not 'water down' the test results as they did in the past.

How testing for THC percentages was altered is something most growers today never knew about and it is not something that most breeders ever advertised. Doing so would greatly diminish how impressive their work appeared too be.

The altered THC percentage testing procedure resulted in a false increase in THC percentages that was believed by people too be real and the result of skilled professional breeders efforts rather than what it actually was, an altered testing procedure resulting in a false increase in THC percentages.

But how many breeders would really want to tell the world about the altered THC testing procedure? How many breeders would rather their customers believe they created wunder strains than tell them where the sudden big increase in reported THC percentages actually came from? How many breeders wanted to admit that when it came to THC levels they did not actually outdo God or Yahweh or Allah or intelligent design or evolution or Mother Nature or whoever or whatever and all they actually ever gave us was variety, as in many different crosses with differing highs, stones or combinations of each in each different strain, and then of course also giving us gimmicks like feminized seeds, pretty colors, Fruity Pebbles flavors, exotic aromas and auto-flowering strains?

For marketing purposes, for name/brand recognition, for egos and for growing bank accounts larger and larger it's vastly more important to appear to have created super strains than it is to be known only for having created variety, but not actually increasing potency.
__________________
Born in sin, come on in...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-13-2012, 04:03 AM
JessE's Avatar
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Linoge View Post

An example is Colombian Gold tested using the old/original THC testing method resulted in a THC level of 7.8%, but when tested using the newer testing method the result was a THC level of 19.3%.

There was what appeared to be an 11.5% increase in THC when in fact there was no actual increase in THC. The only difference was everything other than cannabinoids were no longer factored in so they did not 'water down' the test results as they did in the past.
Hi Andre
Interesting post, I would be interested in learning more about how this test was conducted. One of my main concerns would be whether or not the exact same "Colombian Gold" was tested with both the old and newer methodologies.

Over the last decade online I have seen countless Colombian Golds, Panama Reds, Kush's etc. which are clearly the result of hybridization with lines commonly known as 'Dutch' varieties. However it is my experience that these numerous legendary varieties are quite unique from the Skunk, Northern Lights, Haze hybrids (insert foundational building block lines from Holland) and should by no means be confused with modern day knock offs designed entice consumers rather than serious growers.

So if they were testing samples of the exact same lines from many years ago and today, in my mind, this would add more legitimacy to the work in question as opposed to doing the testing simply based off name alone. Which is an easy mistake to make for those who do not understand the nature of the marketing name game, which sometimes could be the result of innocent mistakes, but none the less genetically, are these lines the same? Or do they just share the same name?
__________________
So we went back to using the very effective peanut butter jar - Howard Marks.

Basic community rules for the Mr Nice Seedbank forum
http://www.mrnice.nl/forum/1-about-w...ank-forum.html

Last edited by JessE; 09-13-2012 at 04:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 663
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Linoge;172016[B
]Ruderalis does offer the auto-flowering capability, but that is something beyond the point I was making, that being, that Ruderalis, like hemp, is extremely low in THC and but higher in CBD ...[/B] and look what has been done with Ruderalis, and that not meaning auto-flowering strains, but not only potency but also medicinal value through the use of Ruderalis.

And that is from something, Ruderalis, that many botanists argue, and firmly believe, was wrongly categorized and is something that actually belongs in the same family grouping as industrial hemp and not the family of cannabis that we all love so much.
What you and the rest are not getting here that is important to this debate is cannabis sativa which was also called hemp (BY THE ENGLISH ) that was used for hemp fiber oil and so on in the early days was also used for recreation and medicine as it had high THC value but modern hemp lines have had the THC breed out of it to miniscule levels that is a key point people need to understand here but are conveniently not taking note of.

Ruderalis had out flowering in its favor it came from Hungary and was breed with indicas to increase its drug value but its not even hemp it has no fiber value and its only value is autoflowering and the ability to thrive in harsh conditions was also a big plus.


Quote:
Cannabis ruderalis is a putative species of Cannabis originating in central Asia. It flowers earlier than C. indica or C. sativa, does not grow as tall, and can withstand much harsher climates than either of them. Cannabis ruderalis will produce flowers based on its age, rather than changes in light cycle like C. sativa and C. indica varieties.[1] This kind of flowering is also known as auto-flowering.[2]

Quote:
Breeding Potential

Cannabis ruderalis has a lower THC content than either C. sativa or C. indica; thus, it has little recreational use. However, C. indica strains are frequently cross-bred with C. ruderalis to produce plants combining a higher THC content with the hardiness and reduced height of ruderalis.[5] These hybrids are known as autoflowering strains
Also why are people focusing only on CBD here as being important only for medical use i thort i showed that was not the case if some think my approach was crude i would love to know why as all i did was point out facts.

He wants to use a modern day hemp hybrid plant because it has high CBD but the important part here is it has also had almost all of its THC and other key components that have a medical value breed out of it so why not state the truth here and instead all i am reading is excuses for the use of a specifically breed plant for fiber to be used in breeding as medical cannabis bit odd if you ask me.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-13-2012, 05:44 AM
Andre Linoge's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JessE View Post
Hi Andre
Interesting post, I would be interested in learning more about how this test was conducted. One of my main concerns would be whether or not the exact same "Colombian Gold" was tested with both the old and newer methodologies.
That particular test comparison was done on a 'Colombian Gold' strain from World of Seeds. I couldn't swear that it was true blue Colombian Gold from 'the olden days, but the difference in THC percentages between testing methods still shows how much the results will differ on the same strain depending on if it is the old original test method used that made strains from the 60's and the 70's appear so low in THC or the newer modern era test method used that makes most strains appear to be much higher in percentage of THC.

Another example is a claimed to be pure Thai strain from Ko Chang, Thailand. When tested using the old test method the results were 9.7% THC. But when the same samples were tested using the newer test method the results were 22.3% THC. That's a 12.6% difference in THC percentage just from different testing methods, the old one and the newer one, being used.

Another example is an Afghan Kush claimed to be 100% pure. Using the old method of testing for levels of THC the result was 7.4%. When the same strain was tested using the newer method of testing for levels of THC the result was 21.6%. That's a 14.2% difference in THC strictly, completely, totally just from the difference in methods of testing.


Quote:
Over the last decade online I have seen countless Colombian Golds, Panama Reds, Kush's etc. which are clearly the result of hybridization with lines commonly known as 'Dutch' varieties. However it is my experience that these numerous legendary varieties are quite unique from the Skunk, Northern Lights, Haze hybrids (insert foundational building block lines from Holland) and should by no means be confused with modern day knock offs designed entice consumers rather than serious growers.

I am highly confident that most strains that are sold as being "pure" today are anything but pure. Not all that many years back, roughly 6 or 8 years or so, I could still easily find strains that were just like pure strains I grew from bagseed back in the 70's. Each year since it has become increasingly difficult to find strains that seem too be even close to being pure.

The last source I trusted for pure strains was Afropips. (Yes, I have always been a sativa freak.) For a fairly lengthy period of time Afropips appeared too be out of business, or at least not restocking seedbanks. While I cannot swear to it being true I read that the owner passed away. I recently received a response from them to my question of would they be restocking seedbanks and I was told for the present they would only have direct sales. But if there is a new owner or new management I do not at this time have a clue if what they now are selling is the same as in the past, as in purity/quality or if that has now changed. The last source I had that I fully trusted for pure stains might no longer be trustworthy.

But when someone sees a Malawi Gold or Durban Poison and the strain information says 9 to 11 weeks ... that's all the person needs to know the strains are not pure. It's not a case of a breeder taking slightly quicker finishing plants and breeding them to each other and over time shrinking a 15 week, or longer, finishing time down to 9 to 11 weeks. It's going to be a case of a breeder having either a pure male or a pure female, but not both, and breeding what they have with a faster finishing strain or just out and out fibbing about what the strain really is.



Quote:
So if they were testing samples of the exact same lines from many years ago and today, in my mind, this would add more legitimacy to the work in question as opposed to doing the testing simply based off name alone. Which is an easy mistake to make for those who do not understand the nature of the marketing name game, which sometimes could be the result of innocent mistakes, but none the less genetically, are these lines the same? Or do they just share the same name?

It would be nice if someone could do a comparison test on strains that are positively known to be totally pure, being known to be the exact same as they were in the 60's or in the 70's. But even if that cannot be done with absolute certainty there is absolute certainty about how the testing procedure was performed in the past and how it is performed today and if you take any modern strain and test it both ways and when using the old testing procedure the results are single digit THC percentages just like test results of the 60's and 70's and when using the newer testing method the results are higher double digit THC percentages that is still proof that the big sudden increase in THC percentages was in fact the result of the change in testing procedure and not the result of some miracle being performed by breeders that advanced evolution, or whatever, by thousands or more years almost overnight.

Something else to factor into the results of old THC tests is something I was told by an ex DEA agent that was my cousin's best friend. He said most confiscated pot from the 60's and the 70's that was tested came from large busts where the trailer of an 18-wheeler or an aircraft was found loaded with pot. One bust he told me about was one where pot had been baled like hay, was stacked on an open flatbed 18-wheeler and had a tarp over it in hopes that it would pass as being nothing more than a truckload of hay. He said that in that era it was common for large amounts of confiscated pot to be stored in government warehouses that were not climate controlled or under open sided sheds or left in the trailers of the 18-wheelers they were found in and kept in a fenced in lot and at times stacked or piled in the open on the ground and covered with tarps and sometimes left as long as a year or more before tests were performed.

We all know what sort of degradation can, and will, occur to pot that is not properly stored so imagine how much the THC levels could have dropped during the storage time before tests were performed.

Compare that to today. Roughly a year ago I read about a large bust. The article said that samples were taken and put in coolers on ice and were at a lab for testing within 24 hours of the bust. I am not saying each and every bust and then test is handled in the exact same way, but when kept in conditions conducive for retaining THC levels and when tested as soon as possible there will be extremely little, if any, THC degradation. That is a major difference compared to how things were done in the 60's and 70's.

When you factor in how long some confiscated pot was stored, and under what conditions it was stored in before testing back in the 60's and 70's and then add how the testing procedure included virtually everything that was found inside of all types of trichome heads, rather than like how THC is now only a percentage of all cannabinoids and samples are kept in conditions conducive to retaining maximum potency and testing being performed as soon as possible, no one could expect pot from the past to test higher than single digits in THC other than on rare occurrences.

But given those differences, and how testing of strains today using both methods of testing procedures shows such a large difference in THC test results, it would not be going out on a limb to say that the highest quality pure strains of the 60's and 70's had to be as high or higher in levels of THC as anything available today from any breeder.

I know that is something that most growers and smokers today will refuse to accept, and God knows that few, if any, breeders will say that it is correct. But when you add it all up it has too be true.

That also explains why many older growers/smokers, those who have grown since the 60's or the 70's, will say that when it comes to pure potency and pure potency alone the best pot they ever smoked or grew and smoked was in the 60's or 70's (or what came from what they were lucky enough to keep mothers of for many years but came from the 60's or 70's).

Many today laugh off such claims as the nostalgic musings of aging hippies and will not begin to even consider that they might be true, let alone flat out accept it. Most growers/smokers today will say that the 'oldsters' have in their minds and memories magnified what were their glory days far beyond what they actually were.

But then almost all who will say that were never lucky enough to experience the soaring ceiling-less mind bending rocket-sled ride high octane pure strains of the 60's and 70's and all they have to base their beliefs on are old test results that cannot accurately be compared to test results of today, the parroted opinions of others who also never experienced the best of the past and the claims/propaganda of breeders who want their customers to believe that they are growing and smoking the highest quality highest potency strains that have ever existed.
__________________
Born in sin, come on in...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All rights reserved, MR NICE SEEDBANK, NL