(July 1, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Razzle Wrote:(July 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I couldn't tell you how strong it was - I suppose it wasn't as strong as the best available today. I *do* know that you can get good and stoned off shit weed, so I fail to see the relevance of that point at all. As obscure as salvia? I don't think history supports you on that.
People who smoked in the 60s-80s are frequently amazed by how modern weed knocks their socks off. There is a HUGE difference between smoking 4% THC and 20%.
*I* smoked it in the 70's and 80's. Frankly, what people are subjectively "frequently amazed" by isn't a good metric for determining the truth value of a claim, in my estimation.
Yes, 4% THC is weaker than 20% THC. So what? This kind of illogic would inform us that it's it's impossible to get just as drunk drinking beer as whiskey.
(July 1, 2015 at 4:47 pm)Razzle Wrote: In terms of accessibility I think it was very comparable to where salvia is at the moment: legal, but you can't just wonder into any local bar, pub, corner shop or supermarket for it as you can with alcohol.
"I think" is also a poor metric for determining the veracity of claims.
TL;DR: [citation needed]
Quote:Was probably more expensive, in relative terms, as well.
"Was probably".
You have anything beyond opinion on this matter?
