3 ms·
It also has some numbers. >In 1989 the THC content of sinsemilla averaged about 7 percent. This is double the concentration of THC in "commercial-grade" mariju
by nom 2y ago
It also has some numbers.
>In 1989 the THC content of sinsemilla averaged about 7 percent. This is double the concentration of THC in "commercial-grade" marijuana, which contains some buds (NNICC, 1985-86; 1989), and is substantially higher than the 3 percent THC reported in standard marijuana (DEA, 1988). Potency has also increased over time from an average .5 percent THC level in 1974 (Mikuriya and Aldrich, 1988). According to the NNICC, the highest concentration of THC reported to date was found in a 1986 sample of marijuana, which contained 18.3 percent THC (NNICC, 1988)."
- eesmith 2y agoI tried to understand those numbers but failed. They come from https://nida.nih.gov/research/research-data-measures-resources/cannabis-potency-data https://nida.nih.gov/research/research-data-measures-resourc... which shows a clear rise. However, they are taken from 'cannabis products distributed in the illegal marijuana marketplace in the United States', as submitted by the DEA and police agencies, and I can't help but wonder about possible sample biases. Like, if the cops find "ditchweed" - low-potency hemp plants - did they used to send that in for testing, while nowadays they don't? If so, that would result in the observed trend, but not reflect what people actually used to get high. I tried to figure that out, but quickly gave up, since the part I quoted 'unclear whether this hurts or helps the health of the typical smoker' was more relevant. Fundamentally it doesn't matter since, as The Atlantic piece mentioned, you can buy products with higher THC levels ("better living, through chemistry!"), and are not limited to what the plant can make.