• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

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

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.
 
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! 8o


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.
 
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%!
 
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.
 
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?
 
High Pressure Liquid Chromatograph, he stated it clearly. I'd like to see some formal results as well though, hearsay is never good.



Why not? Is this fact, or are you just rehashing things you saw written on the internet?

No, I don't research this topic using the internet. I use published botanical and ethnobotany texts. I am a botanist and I have studied breeding and taxonomy. I'm not an expert, I am only giving my opinion based on the knowledge I currently know.

What I do know is that these strains are not registered taxonomic groupings, and should be taken with a grain of salt. The more strains seed companies can come up with the more they can get people to be interested in their company and buy their product.
 
greenhouse seeds is such a pieecee of shiitt! ^ always lying about having leet clones & passing out super shitty wanna be but not quiet replica's, such a disgrace.
 
It would be lovely to see a comeback of some of the land-race genetics of the past.
 
Weed in the 70s compared to weed today

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.

I totally agree. I smoked almost every strain available the 70s, as well as today's strains from dispensaries in California and Colorado. I have never seen anything come close to the Red Bud and Gold Columbian of the 70s except for some of today's strains of White Widow from LA. What is even more incredible, is that these legacy strains were grown outdoors and were full of seeds (hence male plants as well as females).

I recall an ounce of Oaxacan picked up in Alburqueque in December of 1974. The buds were thick and course, and full of seeds. We rolled up a blunt and proceeded to light up as we drove out of Alburquerque on the way to Los Angeles. I had only driven about two miles when I noticed that the white road stripes on I-40 seemed to be jumping around in sync with the music on my car radio. Then they started to strobe and appear to rise up from the road. My buddy noticed I was out of it and asked me to pull over so he could drive. It was at least an hour or more before I felt like myself again.

I like the fact that today's cannabis is grown indoors with great care. It is clean, seed-free, mold-free and is very pleasant to smoke. And it's true that lots of the commercial Mexican we got for $10 an ounce was just schwag. But I've yet to see anything like Red Bud, Gold Columbian or Oaxacan again, although some strains of today's best sativas come close (and are much less harsh). Look for densely clustered buds with lots of sparkly trichomes if you want to have a similar experience.
 
The highest strains of weed today are between 25-27% THC. depending on what you consider "old weed". Genetics have not only made marijuana much more potent, in thc, but also CBDs, and CBNs. Back in the fifties and 60's, there was rarely any marijuana over 15% THC. I believe indicas have been around as long as sativas
 
you have to confess that with the invention of High Pressure Sodium Bulbs and many other techniques which have been proven to increase THC and CBD.
The only difference between the marijuana grown in the 60's and 70's is the technology hadn't been invented to enhance these techniques. The only thing mother nature can do better than we do is produce a large quantity easier than what we can,.

Mother Nature had to do all of this herself back in the "day". and we accepted her as the soul provider. not to even begin mentioning all of the cross breeding that has gone on.
Today it is pretty much official you do not need mother nature to grow marijuana, you need good lighting and nutes and time.
Thats about it.
 
Now I didn't smoke weed in the 70's, seeing as I wouldn't be born for another 21 years, but it's pretty much unanimous that the weed nowadays is a whole lot stronger than it was back then, especially now with medical-grade pot and all. I'm sure if someone went from smoking some red bud everyday from the day Jimi Hendrix died to the 1979 Grateful Dead New Year's show, to smoking some of the weed I've tried in the past 2 years that I've had a medical card, they'd have a panic attack.

This is what I hear from the people i know who were smoking pot around that time as well.
 
Last edited:
Now I didn't smoke weed in the 70's, seeing as I wouldn't be born for another 21 years, but it's pretty much unanimous that the weed nowadays is a whole lot stronger than it was back then, especially now with medical-grade pot and all. I'm sure if someone went from smoking some red bud everyday from the day Jimi Hendrix died to the 1979 Grateful Dead New Year's show, to smoking some of the weed I've tried in the past 2 years that I've had a medical card, they'd have a panic attack.

This is what I hear from the people i know who were smoking pot around that time as well.

I would say this goes even farther to concern older folks man. I'm not in a med state but I've known parents of friends (I lost mine when I was young) that were smokers back in the day that have tried more current stuff and can only handle 1-2 hits ever ~4 hours. I've always wondered why that is too because I can handle significantly more.
 
As mentioned, most of the commercial stuff these days is hybrids. Indica plants pack on weight like crazy and mature fast, the nugs have great bag appeal and most people even prefer the couchlock high to the more cerebral stuff, so it's pushed sativa-dominant strains to the fringe where you'll rarely get a great bag of it unless you know the grower personally. There are some incredible strains out there, like Jack Herer, or C99 if you can handle that, it's just not easy to find them being sold.
 
OK I know this is kinda off topic but not really that badly. My fiance is 16 years older than me, he was born in 69' me late 84. So he said he was a huge pothead especially around 17. So how good was the stuff in 84'? And I smoked Alot in high-school so I wonder about 98'? Because I quit for almost 11 years. I just started smoking again about a year ago. So it's not like I really remember how good the pot was, And I definitely was NOT a pothead. I am now though lol. I like bud. Like the shit that didn't really make you tired And I get motivated to clean And shit. My fiance(even though he'd NEVER admit it likes the couch munchies sleep weed. My ex-bff (sucks but she's been doing dope for a year & relapsed after 5 years of sobriety) And has burned every bridge w me which is hard because I was a dopehead (heroin,iv) but have been clean off dope,coke, never did Meth but I just some weed &take a Xanax once in a while but clean off the "hard stuff" for 6 years. Anyways her bf sells really good bud. He gets it from this guy in Mass that gets it from a dispenser.(there is a point to this And yes I'm really high) I used to get edibles it was great. Well her addiction I just couldn't be friends. Too much bs.
But, I lost a great weed connect. So now I go to Hartford And get 2 Nics of miss. Sucks.
Now my fiance could get really good weed. But it's like he'd rather get miD's. Weird. But the weed he smoked although wasn't in the 60's but 79' eighties it was still not as strong I'd assume & therefore only wants to get miD's. Sucks for me. I wish I lived in Colorado. Good weed makes me wanna clean. I told him he should like me smoking bud lol. Does stronger weed make you more paranoid? I can't tell bc I'm rxed 4mgs of klonopins a day. So maybe he gets really paranoid & anxious. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Jen ??
 
^It's quite possible. I know a ton of people who get really anxious from smoking really high grade weed. I've also experienced it myself a few times, but there was other stuff involved those times. It was on a potent sativa dominant (80/20 iirc) strain each time.
 
What I would like to know is which strains were being tested in the 60's and 70's? Are we talking just random samples taken off the street, or are we talking about the best of the best prized crops?

I mean I can understand such a huge difference in potency if they were just testing random seed riddled samples off the street vs todays professionally grown sensimilla. It doesn't make sense to me that there would be such a huge increase in potency just from breeding. People have known about parthenocarpy and plant breeding practices for thousands of years, its not like its new technology.

I'm more inclined to believe that very potent strains were around back then too, just not widely available in areas where testing was taking place.
 
Nowadays where I live much of the commercial weed is indoor grown Indica , and some of it is very potent indeed . Nevertheless , because of Indica characteristics it is dopey stuff - good for veging out , but not very conducive for getting stuff done ...
Personally , i prefer an energizing Sativa for effect and taste .

As for speculation that today's weed is more potent than that of the 70s - I can recall some sensational types of Thai sticks that would still be sensational today ...
 
Yes there are most definitely original landraces still out there. I would love to savor some fresh Columbian red or durban poison from the good old days before my time.
 
Yeah.. But calling bs.

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.

The blanket statement that "shit is just better because people tried to create the best high".. That is what I want to call bs on. People who gro weed have a goal. Different people have different goals. Humans by nature are pretty greedy... so I argue that yield plays such a factor in what people take when picking breeding outcomes that "best high" may not have been the focus of all the strains we have today. We have a lot of strains today. A FU*# TON of strains. Lots of doodoo out there and then there are some amazing strains.

Not totally disagreeing that there may be stronger strains that perform Bette foday than in the past... I'm just saying that "better" is relative and that stronger doesn't necessarily mean better.
 
Top