Bluelight

Thread: Is there anything that compares to the Red Bud and Columbian Gold of the 70s?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39
  1. Collapse Details
    Is there anything that compares to the Red Bud and Columbian Gold of the 70s? 
    #1
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    17
    Red face
    That's back when I dabbled in getting high.

    Since then, other than a few occasions where I took a toke or two of someone's home grown, I haven't really got stoned much. I am told that today's weed is wayyyyy stronger than the old stuff, is that pretty much true?

    Can you still get the old style weed, or is that like long gone?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Moderator
    North & South American Social & Drug Discussion
    Johnny blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    you and I will always know
    Posts
    9,448
    That "old style" weed was probably a pure sativa or very close. Most weeds now are indica and sativa blends. The sativa dominant strain is said to produce a more psychadelic high where as the indica dominant strain a more "couch lock" sedating high.

    You can still find sativa dominant strains but, whether they're as good or better is up to you. Most hazes are sativas and most people I know that smoked in the 70s say its much better now than then but YMMV.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Bluelighter Chainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,464
    A few older family members have been blown away but what I've given them during the holidays, and they used to be hippies....

    So I'd wage it has gotten better with these 20-30% THC strains.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    there is really no evidence to suggest that marijuana has more thc in it now than in the past. or that 'modern cultivation' techniques have somehow created super weed. the government likes to talk this up in order to convince ppl that its "not the same" as the stuff they (the politicians, judges, adults of today) smoked when they were younger, you know a way to make them feel better than they are locking people up for what they used to do.

    The only difference is the weed in america in the past was just low quality. Sensi existed back then too...
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Moderator
    North & South American Social & Drug Discussion
    Johnny blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    you and I will always know
    Posts
    9,448
    Quote Originally Posted by PsyGhost View Post
    there is really no evidence to suggest that marijuana has more thc in it now than in the past. or that 'modern cultivation' techniques have somehow created super weed. the government likes to talk this up in order to convince ppl that its "not the same" as the stuff they (the politicians, judges, adults of today) smoked when they were younger, you know a way to make them feel better than they are locking people up for what they used to do.

    The only difference is the weed in america in the past was just low quality. Sensi existed back then too...
    Well that's true to a point but through cross breeding we come up with the best possible strains. Its like breeding dogs, you wouldn't want a wolf in your house so we make what we want. For years and years people have been working to find the best high from different strains then combining them and then that one with someone else's and so on. I'm not saying its definitely better but it only stands to reason that this would be true.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Old school Columbian Gold Picture 
    #6
    Greenlighter whitedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I left Toronto after 20 yrs and movedto Thundr Bay Ont
    Posts
    39
    This strain is still around as well as columbian redbud from the good old days> Here is a picture of Col Gold> The grower of this is a pretty good pal of mine and it is great Sativa smoke but beware if growing it as it turns intro a monster with HUGE stretch during flowering and takes 14-16 weeks to finish
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PA120012.jpg 
Views:	508 
Size:	86.6 KB 
ID:	6713  
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    bay area, ca
    Posts
    6
    people in the 60's and 70's would be blown away by todays buds from humboldt, netherlands, etc.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Bluelighter Chainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    6,464
    Quote Originally Posted by PsyGhost View Post
    there is really no evidence to suggest that marijuana has more thc in it now than in the past. or that 'modern cultivation' techniques have somehow created super weed.
    Okay, this may be true, I guess I have no way to PROVE it. I only know that my hippie parents and relatives have smoked a good amount in the past (I mean, a lot!), and the stuff they smoke today blows them away. I've heard them say numerous times that these newer strains are much more potent then anything they ran across. Could it be that they had shitty hookups for ~10 years? Sure, it's possible.... But I think weed today is much more commonly potent, if not just generally stronger, then it was back in the 70s.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Bluelighter Cornishman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vigorously wiping the dust off dustbins.
    Posts
    9,938
    The only old skool smokers I know say that weed is too heavy these days - it's more like going on a trip than having a chilled out smoke.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Quote Originally Posted by chainer3k View Post
    But I think weed today is much more commonly potent, if not just generally stronger, then it was back in the 70s.
    I think thats the main factor. I wasn't around back then, so my claim is one from a botanical perspective. Remember, the plant has been bred for its psychoactive purposes for thousands of years, not just the past 40.

    Everytime I see pictures or video of marijuana from the 60s it almost always looks like schwag. Probably some time in the 70s better strains were starting to filter into America, and with it, domestic breeding programs opened up and allowed for a surge in higher quality supply.

    Also, for the most part many of the strains today arent true to seed, so the actual thc content of the plants will vary, especially since cannabis plants biosynth THC naturally at a variable level based on environmental conditions.

    oh and maybe the reason old timers can't handle todays weed is simply cuz...they're old
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Moderator
    Australian Drug Discussion
    drug_mentor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,161
    I wasn;t around smoking back then, but it stands to reason that in general it probably is, and the best weed possible to obtain is a bit better. You could obviously still have got real good weed back then that would pass as a fucking good smoke by todays standards, even if it was a little less prevalent.

    I am making a guess here but I would say hydroponics have become a lot more mainstream between then and now, giving the grower a much greater ability to regulate growing conditions to an optimal level.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Greenlighter whitedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I left Toronto after 20 yrs and movedto Thundr Bay Ont
    Posts
    39
    I beg to differ somewhat> I really think today's weed is stronger and has a higher % of THC then in the past> Mainly due to the extremely selective breeding processes going on> IMO 27% thc was unheard of in the 60's and there are several strains around today that hover between 23-27 % >> I was smoking in the early seventies and the weed I was smoking certainly wasn't as strong as today's indicas but that is just my own opinion
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Greenlighter whitedawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I left Toronto after 20 yrs and movedto Thundr Bay Ont
    Posts
    39
    As I am a legal exemptee I both moderate and am an administrator at a couple Medical Marijuana sites and looked into this and this is one of the responses I got from another Mod there>>



    ABSOLUTELY!

    I know this for a fact, as I have access to a "High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph" which is one of the best scientific tools to measure cannabinoid profiles and THC levels in cannabis.
    Based on what little conclusive research that can pulled from back then, it's pretty clear cannabis is alot stronger now!

    Average 5-10% max in the old days, average 8-22% now and actually we have reached and seen much higher.

    Our own ****** grew some NL#1 while testing on my AN research team, that came out at a whopping 36% THC....

    (some of the way back members may recall that! lol
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    growing has been around for as long as weed has, it's been cultivated for centuries... I bet the native americans who grew it knew about strains. Modern technology hasn't advanced that much in recent years when it comes to horticulture. Strain difference is hardly new information as far as growers go.



    on average it may have been better because it was so much cheaper. But they probably had dank buds too
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    HPS evolution!
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Bluelighter pkt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,835
    According to the geniuses up in management the weed now is 10X as potent as it has ever been.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Bluelighter Cornishman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Vigorously wiping the dust off dustbins.
    Posts
    9,938
    Does stronger necessarily mean better?
    Some of us prefer to chill out and relax after a joint. Not get all fucked up/tripped out.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Bluelighter a100unitSHOT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Smack in the Middle
    Posts
    429
    Weed
    Quote Originally Posted by chainer3k View Post
    Okay, this may be true, I guess I have no way to PROVE it. I only know that my hippie parents and relatives have smoked a good amount in the past (I mean, a lot!), and the stuff they smoke today blows them away. I've heard them say numerous times that these newer strains are much more potent then anything they ran across. Could it be that they had shitty hookups for ~10 years? Sure, it's possible.... But I think weed today is much more commonly potent, if not just generally stronger, then it was back in the 70s.
    Agreed. When ever I get a chance to smoke today's name brand stuff with people who grew up in the '60s, it rocks their ass.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    i fucking love it when i come across some stuff that just flat out hits me like a truck...

    i was at a rave and this guy had a blunt, i hit it and was like "woah, holy shit.... i have to see what this shit looks like"

    i think he called it pot o' gold.... but damn, 1 hit and i was pretty damn stoned....

    Every now and then we get some beautiful bud through town, good flavor, not leafy at all, just covered in crystals.... like white with them.....
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Does stronger necessarily mean better?
    Some of us prefer to chill out and relax after a joint. Not get all fucked up/tripped out.
    agreed & hash blunts are something you should steer clear of. Basically although marijuana may have a higher THC content it doesnt mean people will smoke an equivalent amount to schwagg. Rather it implies people smoke less of the potent stuff to equal the same high as a good chunck of shity shit and saves their lungs from extra damage.

    1shot of vodka vs 10beers
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by PsyGhost View Post
    there is really no evidence to suggest that marijuana has more thc in it now than in the past. or that 'modern cultivation' techniques have somehow created super weed. the government likes to talk this up in order to convince ppl that its "not the same" as the stuff they (the politicians, judges, adults of today) smoked when they were younger, you know a way to make them feel better than they are locking people up for what they used to do.

    The only difference is the weed in america in the past was just low quality. Sensi existed back then too...
    The stuff I was smoking in the 70s... sticky hairy red bud and columbian was anything BUT low quality..... but I don't have anything to compare to. I do know it had some serious kick ass flavor to it.... that was almost as enjoyable as the getting high part. It was the kind of weed that two or three hits out of a bong was good for an intense buzz. I'd like to get some of that same stuff today.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Greenlighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tx
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by whitedawg View Post
    This strain is still around as well as columbian redbud from the good old days> Here is a picture of Col Gold> The grower of this is a pretty good pal of mine and it is great Sativa smoke but beware if growing it as it turns intro a monster with HUGE stretch during flowering and takes 14-16 weeks to finish

    Wow, that's awesome!


    I have to admit there was a LOT of crap weed back in the 70s too. But there too was some top grade stuff. I was just lucky to have a great connection.
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Moderator
    North & South American Social & Drug Discussion
    Johnny blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    you and I will always know
    Posts
    9,448
    Quote Originally Posted by whitedawg View Post
    As I am a legal exemptee I both moderate and am an administrator at a couple Medical Marijuana sites and looked into this and this is one of the responses I got from another Mod there>>



    ABSOLUTELY!

    I know this for a fact, as I have access to a "High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph" which is one of the best scientific tools to measure cannabinoid profiles and THC levels in cannabis.
    Based on what little conclusive research that can pulled from back then, it's pretty clear cannabis is alot stronger now!

    Average 5-10% max in the old days, average 8-22% now and actually we have reached and seen much higher.

    Our own ****** grew some NL#1 while testing on my AN research team, that came out at a whopping 36% THC....

    (some of the way back members may recall that! lol
    That's some interesting info, thanks for that. I like where this discussion is going and I think everyone is making good points. Damn though dude 36%!
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    Quote Originally Posted by whitedawg View Post
    As I am a legal exemptee I both moderate and am an administrator at a couple Medical Marijuana sites and looked into this and this is one of the responses I got from another Mod there>>



    ABSOLUTELY!

    I know this for a fact, as I have access to a "High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph" which is one of the best scientific tools to measure cannabinoid profiles and THC levels in cannabis.
    Based on what little conclusive research that can pulled from back then, it's pretty clear cannabis is alot stronger now!

    Average 5-10% max in the old days, average 8-22% now and actually we have reached and seen much higher.

    Our own ****** grew some NL#1 while testing on my AN research team, that came out at a whopping 36% THC....

    (some of the way back members may recall that! lol
    see i still think this is kinda bs. how are you measuring thc content and where are these reports? also if these strains arent seeding true then how do we even know if the offspring generations have a continual thc range?

    Also, that really doesnt have much to do with the original argument, which is that weed found in America (or other western countries) was mostly low quality because low quality weed saturated the market/was the only weed available. The high quality strains which began to emerge in the 70s werent due to breeding at that specific point in time, but due to these strains making it into the hands of western breeders, which were then able to increase a domestic supply of high quality marijuana.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Bluelighter Blowmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Netherlands - /plur
    Posts
    11,637
    Quote Originally Posted by PsyGhost View Post
    see i still think this is kinda bs. how are you measuring thc content and where are these reports?
    High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph, he stated it clearly. I'd like to see some formal results as well though, hearsay is never good.

    The high quality strains which began to emerge in the 70s werent due to breeding at that specific point in time,
    Why not? Is this fact, or are you just rehashing things you saw written on the internet?
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •