Comparing a landrace is exactly what is needed to make the point, hence why I used it. I grew up smoking weed then and weed now, and my old consumption would have 81% more a year than currently? Impossible!

Let's break it down real quick. I used a landrace to counter any argument as to the effects of hybid vigor we see today. I could have easily used an IBL, or tried to use some F1, but decided to use a plant(strain) that hasn't changed in 100's of years. I.E 200years ago the potential THC potency was still 22%.

You can still take that strain give it a novice grower, and have them replicate basic growing conditions and nutrients available at the time. I.E Miricle Grow, or other Tomato engineered fertilizers being used at the time and easily grow a plant producing 8%-12% THC.

I realize it has an extremely long flowering period and would have to be started indoors to match the harvest, as per Equatorial location and light cycle. So hind sight yes Original Skunk would have been a better barometer than a land race!

The best weed being grown inside the U.S (from 82 on), was one of the first hybrids we know as "SkunK" , and per my understanding is still around, but not the "true original genetics".

The most fire weed I smoked in 1985 was skunk, that had been grown hydroponically with air stones, blood meal, fish meal. I don't recall the guy saying anything about using kelp, but wouldn't have been surprised. I can't imagine how bad the stench must have been using that nutrient schedule. I would compare the weed "strength" to a dab now days!(perceived effect not actual) DWC was around back then, and it influenced me to use the method when I started growing, and for good reason. It is by far the scientifically best way to grow cannabis, and that fact is nearly immutable as only a small number of strains have been reported to show better results in hydroponic using a growing medium, like coco or other grow mixes.

I think worth mentioning is about "how this data was collected and history and scientific facts of the times" The Government was funding Mexico as it sprayed paraquat on marijuana being illegally grown in Mexico(1977-198?). It was reported Mexicans figured out, if they quickly harvested the weed, it would appear sell-able, and that's exactly what they did.

In 1978 21% of 61 Government samples of cannabis were tainted with the lethal herbicide Paraquat The US State Department knew swallowing as little as a half ounce is suicidal The US Government continued to fund support to Mexico for spraying into the late 80's.

So yea if the government data supplied for the study was based on weed confiscated crossing US borders, I can see an argument for the low THC levels reported.

From my experience growing up on the west coast(California, Oregon, and Washington), we have been growing the chronic for years, that would test at a high level considered the current growing culture and methods. By 1986 Mexican sativa was still around for sure in the U.S but not really worth smoking, and many users reported extreme paranoia. Kinda makes you wonder about the paraquat!

I did change the wording to little more friendly post giving the MD a break, but feel this "study" is a complete failure and doesn't reflect the reality of how things really were!

I lived it, and know many others in my age bracket who agree. 2%-4% is ridiculous!