Drugs Now Vs Drugs Before
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy a répondu le Wed 15 Jul, 2009 @ 3:00pm |
 Coolness: 106135 | Just because you just read "the book" and Normand Baillargeon is your new messiah doesnt mean you have to be a pretentious prick about it. You'll get over it/yourself eventually, I guess.
Citing dated study s that have references in the 80's is logical to you? So your mission is to prove that weed today, here in Quebec has the same potency as in the 80's 90's? So far you failed at providing any recent data to back up your claim. Im not presenting my "limited experience" as truth. I'm just sharing it for the sake of testimony. You however seem to be totally bias and full of shit. |
| I'm feeling no sleep till tuesda right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JEE3.14_agricole a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:09pm |
 Coolness: 107255 | indeed.. and from what i can see he seems to know everything , he makes affirmation like this in almost ALL forums ive been visiting.. knowledge is good , prettending you know all and imposing your point of view instead of sharing is .. annoying at best |
| I'm feeling stressssssss!!! right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» LeChat a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:11pm |
 Coolness: 115555 | bon. jsuis pas la seule qui le trouve enervant. |
| I'm feeling the bass right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JojoBizarre a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:14pm |
 Coolness: 294995 | mais toi leChat tu ne l'es pas! |
| I'm feeling a ok right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» LeChat a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:15pm |
| Coolness: 115555 | what? :O jsuis enervante? |
| I'm feeling the bass right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JEE3.14_agricole a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:16pm |
| Coolness: 107255 | pen toute.. t toute douce
*ptit rire en coin de pervert* |
| I'm feeling stressssssss!!! right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» LeChat a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:18pm |
| Coolness: 115555 | douce?
cest tellement pas beau comme compliment :P mais merci quand meme haha |
| I'm feeling the bass right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» JojoBizarre a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:24pm |
| Coolness: 294995 | Originally Posted By LECHAT
what? :O jsuis enervante? non je disais le contraire et je n'étais pas sarcastique. |
| I'm feeling a ok right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» LeChat a répondu le Mon 20 Jul, 2009 @ 4:26pm |
| Coolness: 115555 | aaaaaaaw merci monsieur :) |
| I'm feeling the bass right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» AYkiN0XiA a répondu le Mon 3 Aug, 2009 @ 8:52am |
 Coolness: 166595 | hum meme dans l'article de erowid le pourcentage de THC monte avec les années alors c'est quoi le but de dire que non il monte pas?
i mean, oui c'est quelque chose de dire que les samples étaient pas bon, et c'est logique aussi. mais c'est aussi important de considérer les avancées technologiques dans la cultivation du weed, les pesticides, engrais, etc... naturellement le cannabis poussait partout en amérique avant qu'on le déclare comme plante illégale et qu'on l'enlève de partout... mais il ne contenait que très peu de THC - c'est un peu comme la mélanine dans la peau; le plus on vit au sud, le plus la peau en contient. c'est pour ça que le weed jamaicain ou mexicain était plus fort. les pays comme les états unis et le canada doivent trouver un moyen de créer le climat idéal (heures d'ensoleillement, chaleur, terre, vitamines) pour avoir le plus haut taux de THC possible. et avec toutes les années de recherche, c'est juste logique que le taux de THC augmente... lentement, oui. passer de 2.28 en 1981 à 3.32 en 1993 c'est augmenter d'un peu plus que 30%... donc si on suit cette logique, le contenu de THC est maintenant plus que le double qu'il l'était en 1981. donc deux fois plus fort, tsé, ça parait. c'est comme la différence entre boire de la bière ou du vin... |
| I'm feeling psy-minded right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» HumFuk a répondu le Tue 1 Sep, 2009 @ 1:32am |
 Coolness: 29835 | I should probably be doing something more useful than posting here, but fuck me girl ! I can't let this kind call unanswered
have you even read the erowid article I linked ? first the numbers themselves, let's see, you chose 1981 and 1993, i'll take 1982 ans 1992 which are respectively 3.05 and 3.00 which means an actual decrease. now let's check the sentence right before the numbers, the one which says "As shown below, average potency has remained essentially unchanged since the early 1980s", you know its' the sentence right after that other one which states that this values "continue to be based on "convenience" rather than "representative" samples." oh and let's have a look at the beginning of the page, more specifically the part which says "At no time have police seizures reflected the marijuana generally available to users around the country and, in the 1970s, they were over- represented by large-volume low-potency Mexican kilobricks." Seems to have also overlooked the fact that all independent studies found higher level of THC in samples, as stated "In 1975, PharmChem samples ranged from 2 to 5%, with some as high as 14%" now ket's review the numbers again except this time I'll pick 1975 pharmchem number and 1993 pmp number, going from 14% to 3.32% is not so much of an increase is it ? but maybe you don't like erowid and would prefer some more recent and better documented reports, then you can check these: - EMCDDA INSIGHTS: An overview of cannabis potency in Europe [ www.emcdda.europa.eu ] - OFDT: Les taux de THC du cannabis en France (16 février 2005) [ www.ofdt.fr ] - UNODC: world drug report 2009 [ viewer.zmags.com ] while at it you can also check these which states that cannabis potency has not changed over time (except for those usa samples) and that samples from usa were borked due lack of proper technique to preserve the thc turning into cannabinol. [ ar2004.emcdda.europa.eu ] [ www.unodc.org ] now your personal theory about outdoor growing and sun being related can look interesting to the layman but it makes little to no sense to anyone who has gardened or grown weed, and if you haven't just check the map for climatologically suitable areas for outdoor cultivation of cannabis: [ bayimg.com ] Then again you might want to do some research on cannabis resin usage during the medieval times, you'll probably be surprised. just say KnoW. That's about it, now you guys can resume bashing me. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» databoy a répondu le Tue 1 Sep, 2009 @ 11:14am |
| Coolness: 106135 | "29 June 2009 - Of the many people worldwide who use cannabis, also known as marijuana, very few understand the increase in its potency over the years. Cannabis has changed dramatically since the 1970s. New methods of production such as hydroponic cultivation have increased the potency and the negative effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the most psychoactive of the chemical substances found in marijuana. It is important to understand cannabis potency because of its link to health problems including mental health.
The amount of THC present in a cannabis sample is generally used as a measure of cannabis potency. One of the most comprehensive studies, conducted by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) in 2004, concluded that a modest increase in aggregate cannabis potency had occurred, possibly attributable to the use of intensive indoor cultivation methods. The authors of the study noted that, nonetheless, THC content varied widely." Could you have overlooked this excerpt from one of the links you posted? p.s. Perhaps peoples will stop "bashing" you if you stop acting like an arrogant prick... |
| I'm feeling no sleep till tuesda right now.. | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini a répondu le Fri 16 Oct, 2009 @ 2:02pm |
 Coolness: 145220 | Originally Posted By DATABOY
p.s. Perhaps peoples will stop "bashing" you if you stop acting like an arrogant prick... nahhhhh it's too late for that. |
| I'm feeling surly right now.. | |
Drugs Now Vs Drugs Before
[ Haut de la page ] |
Poster Une Réponse |
Vous devez être connecté pour soumettre une réponse.
[ Haut de la page ] |
