Why Does Smoking Weed Suck Now?
Credibility score: 41/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Why Does Smoking Weed Suck Now?" and rated it 41/100 for credibility (a BS score of 59/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-09. Its weakest claim — "Old weed was expensive, now it's cheap — that's why quality dropped." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 20 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 20 claims analyzed: 5 scored under 40, 15 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Weed doesn't hit the same — universal personal feeling — Personal Story (60/100)
At 1:02
One guy's bad high turned into everyone feels this way — n=1 with ambitions 😈
Why this score: He's framing his single conversation as a collective truth everyone shares. The move is taking one subjective experience and declaring it universal without evidence that others actually feel it.
Original quote: “recently I got fried and I was having a conversation with one of my friends that smoked a joint with me about how the weed nowadays just doesn't hit the same”
Everyone's cutoff point is universal — confidence without data — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:30
Calls a personal pattern universal — no poll, no survey, just his timeline 😈
Why this score: He's asserting that everyone's nostalgia cutoff lands around the same years without showing any actual data or widespread polling to support that claim.
Original quote: “there seems to be a cut off point of when the weed stopped being it. And that cut off point seems pretty universal for people”
2016-2017 cutoff, zero nostalgia for 2020 weed — his lived experience — Personal Story (60/100)
At 1:46
Never heard nostalgia for 2020 weed — that's his ears, not a census 💀
Why this score: He's using his own lack of hearing certain conversations as evidence that nobody feels nostalgia for 2020 weed. The move is treating personal exposure as comprehensive data.
Original quote: “around maybe 2016 or 2017 is when all of that came crashing down and we no longer have people I have never heard a soul in my damn life have nostalgia for the 2020 COVID weed”
Labels past weed 'good' and now 'bad' — nostalgia disguised as fact — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:43
Calls old weed 'good' without mentioning he was 15 — everything hits different when you're a kid 😈
Why this score: The speaker frames his teen memories as objective quality decline, skipping that first highs are always stronger due to tolerance and novelty, not just the product itself.
Original quote: “I remember very very thoroughly and I was at the end of this era of quote unquote good weed that I'm referring to.”
Claims black market had more variety than legal market — romanticizing illegal plugs — Missing Context (45/100)
At 3:12
Says plugs had 'everything' — ignores that most of what they sold was mislabeled mystery weed back then 💀
Why this score: Pre-legalization plugs rarely knew actual strain names and often sold whatever came in as 'whatever the customer wanted to hear' — the variety was branding, not genetics.
Original quote: “there was just the plugs had everything different and you could go to different guys for different strains”
Complains most weed is 'crosses' now — acts like that's new or bad — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:18
Every strain you've ever loved was a cross too — Green Crack, Gelato, all of it. That's how weed works 😈
Why this score: The speaker treats hybridization like corporate corruption when it's literally how cannabis breeding has always worked — landraces got crossed into everything decades before legalization.
Original quote: “90%, maybe not 90%, but at least 80% of the stuff that I want to smoke is a cross or a hybrid of something else”
Today's strains aren't the real old genetics — they're Frankensteined versions — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:41
Says 'not authentic' like there's a DNA test proving it — zero lab data cited.
Why this score: Calls modern Green Crack a 'Frankenstein' without showing any genetic comparison or pedigree records. The claim hinges on the idea that only the original seed line counts as real, but offers no receipts — just the speaker's nose and memory.
Original quote: “The green crack that you're smoking in 2026 is not the green crack that we were all smoking in 2016. And it was not the green crack that everyone was smoking in 2006.”
Legal big grows killed small-strain culture and lineage — Missing Context (45/100)
At 5:44
Blames legalization for wiping out heritage — ignores that many old cuts are still circulating in legal and gray markets.
Why this score: Frames corporate grows as the sole destroyer of genetic diversity while skipping the fact that legacy breeders, seed banks, and clone networks still exist post-legalization. The causal leap is tidy; the supporting timeline is absent.
Original quote: “The corporatization of weed, right? Once everything went legal... All of the lineage and the culture behind a lot of these small strains just got wiped the fuck out.”
Craft growers ran on soul, corporations on numbers. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:40
Skips that soul growers also chased profit — just smaller margins.
Why this score: Frames corporate metrics as soulless while ignoring that legacy growers still sold weed for $3-4k a pound. The 'soul' part romanticizes people who were also running a business, just at smaller scale.
Original quote: “Those guys don't operate purely on on yield percentages and and t percentages and THC percentages and analytics and numbers. Those guys operate on soul.”
Old weed was expensive, now it's cheap — that's why quality dropped. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 7:12
Equates price drop with quality drop — ignores that cheaper weed could just mean better supply.
Why this score: Treats high prices as proof of quality. The $3-4k pound era also included drought prices, risk premiums, and prohibition markups. Lower prices today could reflect economies of scale, not just corner-cutting.
Original quote: “Pounds used to go for $3-4,000, guys. Nowadays, you can get a pound of good ass weed for a grand if even.”
Corporate clones aren't "real genetics" — mutation doom story — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:30
Treats in-house breeding like it's automatically fake — ignores decades of commercial seed work.
Why this score: Phenotypic selection and cloning are standard, documented practices in legal cannabis. The speaker offers no evidence that commercial phenotypes are inferior or "illegitimate," just labels them in-house and moves on.
Original quote: “they phen hunt it. They do these in-house versions of these cuts. They're almost never real deal legitimate genetics. And at the end of the day, weed plants are living beings, right? These genetics over time, these mother plants over time, as generations go for these seeds, the the genetics just…”
Big grows only chase yield — flavor and genetics are dead — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 8:55
Assumes profit motive killed diversity — data on terpene-focused craft growers never enters the picture.
Why this score: Legal markets now include thousands of small-batch cultivators tracking cannabinoids and terpenes, not just weight. The segment never mentions this counter-trend; it just picks the corporate monoculture slice and calls it the whole story.
Original quote: “Especially nowadays when there's less people than ever fighting for those genetics, you know, when it's all just a an analytics game. Hey, you know, we got enough data to say, let's grow a [ __ ] 100,000 lights of gelato and let's grow 200,000 likes of Skittles, you know, and the companies just…”
Indica/Sativa gone — profit killed the categories — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:09
Blames commerce for erasing two labels that were never botanically accurate to begin with.
Why this score: Indica and Sativa were always folk categories based on leaf shape, not reliable effect markers. Modern chemotype research shows cannabinoids and terpenes drive experience, not the old labels. The speaker equates lost marketing shorthand with lost quality.
Original quote: “Indica and Sativa barely exists anymore. Not because it was never a real concept, but because it's been bred to obscurity, right? Everything's a [ __ ] hybrid, dude. In the pursuit of profit by these giant corporate weed companies, we have lost the sauce.”
Hybrids dominate because they sell — presents as fact — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 10:30
Claims sales drive everything with zero numbers — confidence without receipts 💀
Why this score: The speaker asserts market motives as the sole driver without citing sales data, grower surveys, or industry reports. That turns an observation into a sweeping economic law.
Original quote: “dude. Everything is a hybrid. Everything is crossed. And the reason they do that is because it sells, right?”
All Skittles crosses are bad — blanket verdict — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 10:59
All-or-nothing: either pure landraces or trash. Ignores decent crosses that exist 🔥
Why this score: The claim flattens every hybrid into one quality level. Reality has gradients; treating an entire category as uniformly terrible is the classic false-dilemma move.
Original quote: “now all we just have a trillion Skittles hybrids on the market and they all [__] blow”
Old weed = better high despite lower THC — nostalgia pivot — Personal Story (60/100)
At 12:13
One man's memory becomes the universal truth. Diary entry with ambitions 😈
Why this score: This is lived experience, not data. The speaker admits possible downsides of old weed, then uses personal feeling to declare it superior. Valid memory, not evidence of a golden era.
Original quote: “maybe the weed that we used to smoke back in the day, maybe it was harsher, maybe it was leafier, maybe it had a lower THC percentage, but I remember smiling a little harder”
All strains deliver identical effects — blanket generalization. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:43
Claims seven strains feel identical — says it like it's settled science, not his palate.
Why this score: Personal tolerance and routine can flatten perceived differences; doesn't prove the genetics themselves are now uniform.
Original quote: “Every single one is going to result in the same high with the exception being my one jar of lemon tree that I have.”
Classic GMO phenotype declared extinct — dramatic language, zero receipts. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 12:56
Extinct talk with no seed-bank data or grower census — just memory versus today’s shelves.
Why this score: Rare phenotypes often survive in small circles; calling it gone without checking current preservation projects is a leap.
Original quote: “one of my favorite strains, GMO, has basically gone extinct... the true foxtail GMO that we all know and love, that shit is extinct, dude.”
Admits quality’s fine, then pivots to ‘variety is dead’ — quiet contradiction. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 13:58
Opens with ‘weed is fire now,’ spends the rest mourning what’s supposedly missing — both can’t lead.
Why this score: If potency and cleanliness are up, the ‘variety’ complaint is taste nostalgia, not an objective downgrade.
Original quote: “the weed nowadays sucks. It doesn't, dude... we're losing that variety.”
Weed lost variety like games lost soul — both now samey corporate product — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 14:30
Gaming graphics and cannabis chemistry aren't the same thing — one is pixels, one is molecules. 😈
Why this score: He equates two industries that have nothing to do with each other. Video games optimizing for realism is an artistic choice. Cannabis potency and chemical profile are scientific outcomes of breeding and cultivation. The only thing they share is both being products — that's not a meaningful parallel, that's just 'corporations exist.'
Original quote: “losing that variety. I kind of view what's happening to weed the same way as I view what's happening to gaming. Every video game nowadays is turning into an Unreal Engine 5 [__] slotfast where every game has to look extremely realistic. If you guys know what DLSS5 is, that new Nvidia AI graphic…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →