Replies

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.

What are you trying to say anyway? If the THC doesn't fit you must acquit. I must say I am a little troubled by your argument even though my point should of sounded a little more like what I have already conceded in my past post.

This was the original Hazelden info combined with the DEA report on BC Bud.

http://www.hazelden.org/servlet/hazelden/cms/ptt/hazl_alive_and_free.html?sf=t&sh=t&page_id=25446

Increased potency. Marijuana today is much stronger. The average potency of marijuana, or the THC content (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) that produces the "high," has increased from an average of 1 percent in the 1960s to 3 percent today. Greater availability of even more potent marijuana, up to 15 percent THC, increases the risk of intoxication.

With the DEA report BC Bud and Canadian marijuana being smuggled across the border in large amounts how would either one of us now know what the accurate average is today?

If you are a lawyer then maybe you should develop a conscience and look at the overall content of my article.

I welcome criticism and without it the other freeper's wouldn't learn anything from the information "right or wrong."

You did a wonderful job using the average THC level and made that the focus of discrediting my entire outlook on the side effects and harm marijuana causes.

What other parts of my article did you find incorrect besides the THC?

You tell me you are not a marijuana advocate but you do seem to have a hair across your ass with one point that you seem not able to pass? You yourself have stated that the THC content is 5 times greater in your past posts? What gives if those days are over for you?

Correction you haven't stated it but you posted a % that represents it 5%.

Like to remind you of a previous post

I know people who still smoke pot who are very successful hard working people. I also know losers who smoke it, but I imagine most of them would have been losers whether they smoked pot or not. Overall, I think people would all be better off if they left things like pot and booze alone. But I don't really care if people use either as long as they don't cause big problems for me or our community through their use. The vast majority of those who use these substances in moderation don't cause us any problems, and if it makes them happy to smoke a couple of hits off a joint or drink a couple of beers, I say let them do it.

A lot of my posts show that there are big problems in communities already. Who has defined what moderate use is for marijuana anyway today? Have you any studies on how much use isn't harmful? Why don't you post it for me if you can find any please?