> Concentrated hash was widely available in California in the 1980s I don't believe this for a second. I mean, maybe it was "widely available" compared to ura

> Concentrated hash was widely available in California in the 1980s I don't believe this for a second. I mean, maybe it was "widely available" compared to uranium-238, but not compared to concentrated hash today (which is what we're discussing). THC oil today is cheap enough and ubiquitous enough for minimum wage/homeless people to use daily, there's no way that was true before legalization. > the strength of locally grown strains then was little different than it is today First off, this contradicts every source I can find, as well as common sense (have all of the industry's attempts to breed more potent strains over the past three decades been abysmal failures?). But I did some research just for fun to confirm that; here are my results: 2013: Most potent strain ever tested in the history of the High Times Cannabis Cup was 28.35% (according to https://hightimes.com/grow/25-greatest-strains-of-all-time/ https://hightimes.com/grow/25-greatest-strains-of-all-time/ ) 2022: Most potent strain I found by picking a random midwestern city (Ypsilanti, MI) and clicking on the first weed shop in the search results: 33.07% (according to https://menu.theflowerpot.us/stores/the-flower-pot/products/flower https://menu.theflowerpot.us/stores/the-flower-pot/products/... ) Second, supposing they were growing 33% bud in Humboldt in the 80s, surely you would agree that most US pot smokers weren't able to get it. Today they can, which supports the assertion of the article. > these kind of articles are just so reminiscent of Nancy Reagan's 'think of the children' pearl-clutching nonsense. It's seductive but erroneous to assume that everything an idiot says is false.