Replies

Truth of the matter is trying to find an accurate account of THC levels is like finding an equal % on the Real Clear Politics web site before the election on who was going to win the Presidency. I will concede to that because the research is all over the place which makes my article confusing. However the truth is that the THC levels in marijuana is much greater and not the same when I was younger and far more harmful despite the data that I had received.

The frustrating part of presenting any material on marijuana is the bread always ends up landing butter side down first.

A large population of our country loves to get high and how dare I intrude by trying to present the dangers.

Actually the research isn't all over the place on marijuana potency. The claims are all over the place. The only national study is the Marijuana Potency Monitoring Project we've been talking about and it's been an ongoing study for thirty years or so where they analyze piles of samples from all over the country. That is the definitive source for government data on marijuana potency nationwide. Those are the numbers NIDA, the ONDCP, and the DEA cite when they talk about marijuana potency in the U.S.A.. Your article wasn't confusing with respect to average marijuana potency in this country, it was wrong, plain and simple. If you could show me that the research was all over the place as to average marijuana potency in this country, I would concede that I am wrong. However, there is no study whatsoever anywhere to back up your claim that marijuana in this country has an average THC content of 15%. You might find where someone claims it is 15%, 20%, or even 30%, but you would not be able to find any evidence whatsoever to back up those numbers.

Besides doing a lot of reading on this topic, and having more than a little experience with marijuana in my younger days, I've handled thousands of pounds worth of marijuana cases as a lawyer. I've taken testimony from local narcotics officers and DEA agents and they confirm what the federal drug seizure statistics show and that is that the vast majority of all of the thousands of metric tons of marijuana seized in this country every year is seedy compressed commercial grade pot from south of the border. This is the stuff that tests out in the neighborhood of 3% to maybe 7% THC. It's what the government calls "commercial grade" marijuana that according to the numbers you posted averaged less than 5% THC content each year during the several years listed in the post you made before where you quoted government potency statistics. The most powerful hydroponic pot, though prevalent in some parts of the country, makes up but a tiny fraction of the marijuana consumed in this country. The most potent stuff is prohibitively expensive for most pot smokers to buy with any regularity, especially teens who don't normally have that much spending money. For the most part if they are smoking pot they're smoking cheap Mexican brick weed that's somewhere around 5% THC, as are most adults who smoke pot in this country.

"The frustrating part of presenting any material on marijuana is the bread always ends up landing butter side down first.

A large population of our country loves to get high and how dare I intrude by trying to present the dangers."

Sorry buddy but I'm not falling for that. You wrote an article with mistakes and false claims. I called you on it. It wasn't because I like to get high, those days are long past for me. I called you on it because you were wrong. I called you on it because, unintentional or not, you were spreading a lie. And if your article was one that sang praises to marijuana but was a sorry piece of work complete with patently false claims I probably would have called you on that too. There's enough b.s. floating around out there already about marijuana.