Ridiculous comments from the DEA

[hifigator]

gainesville.com/article/20070621/APN/706210937


The article is in today's paper on page 2b, titled "Local Police want help on marijuana grow house crime."

Mark Trouville is the chief of the US Drug Enforcement Administration's Miami office. Here is an excerpt from the article:

"In these houses, the marijuana is typically grown hydroponically -- that is, using a nutrient solution istead of soil.
...
Marijuana grown this way is as much as 200 percent more potent than if the drug were grown outdoors, Trouville said.
...
'This ain't your grandfather's or your father's marijuana,' Trouville said. 'This will hurt you. This will addict you. This will kill you.'"



Come on, what kind of crap is that? It is a documented fact that there has not been a single death from overdosing on marijuana EVER!. There was one claimed instance a couple of years ago, but toxicology tests proved otherwise. Furthermore, all studies have shown that marijuana is NOT physically addictive at all. As for "hurt," well, I guess that's possible. You might have sore ribs after caughing a lot.

What a bunch of crap.


Annual Causes of Deaths in the US

Estimated U.S. deaths in 2000 attributed to:

Tobacco (Average 1990 - 94): ................................. 430,700 (1)
Alcohol (1996): ................................................. 110,640 (2)
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs (1982 / 1998): .. 32,000 (3)
Suicide (1998): .................................................. 30,575 (4)
Homicide (1998): ............................................... 18,272 (5)
All licit and illicit drug-induced deaths (1998): ............. 16,926 (6)
Non-Steroidal Anti- Inflammatory Drugs (1992):............ 7,600 (7)
Marijuana: ...................................................... 0 (8)

[AustinHoya03]

Anybody else beginning to think hifi smokes a lot of chiva? I picture hifi rolling a fatty and turning up the Chronic Nine Deuce while waiting for his dial-up to connect.

[hifigator]

I'm not going to lie and say that I don't smoke, because I have before and there's no way I can say that I never will again, but I don't smoke in the current sense. But I do have a lot of really good friends who smoke daily. Not a single one of them has any strange problem, at least even one tangentially related to weed. For privacy reasons, I won't list their specific vocations, but the list would range from things like plumbers to electricians to business owners to professionals. Zip -- zero -- zilch -- nada ... that's how many serious problems have arisen as a result. I think several have probably had simple misdemeanor possession charges at some point in the past, but absolutely nothing serious.

But in any case, I am not trying to start up the legality debate again, just pointing out the absolute absurdity of these comments from a high ranking government emplyee specifically in the war on drugs.

[Filo]

hifigator said:

But I do have a lot of really good friends who smoke daily.

They're your good friends. They smoke a lot of weed.

Correlation? You be the judge. ;D

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

based on your comments here HiFi I'd turn down the power output of my hydroponic lamps - the attorney general is coming after you.

[hoyatables]

Sigh. HiFi being around here is one thing. HiFi using this board as his personal sounding board for the legality of marijuana is something else. Let's keep the discussion to things like Minivans and Jessica Alba.

[hifigator]

I did start the thread questioning the criminalization of marijuana, so as to that charge I plead no contest.

But this is an entirely different issue. I mean seriously, here is a high ranking government official who is presumably very familiar with the issues related to his field. Yet he comes out and plays some sort of scare tactic trump card about this not being "your grandfather's marijuana." And then takes it even further by saying that it can hurt you, is highly addictive and can kill you. What kind of credibility does this guy have now? Did he think he was talking to a bunch of kids who just fell off the turnip truck?

I didn't even point out that he said that this stuff is "up to 200% more potent" than outdoor grown pot. Now this is probably just the verbal equivalent of a typo. If he meant to say it that way, then all he said is that some weed is "up to" twice as strong as other weed. Well whoop-tee-do! I think he really meant to say 200 times as strong. That is absolute utter rubbish. Granted I am sure someone could find one type of weed which is 200 times as strong as another, but it isn't (or at least isn't solely/primarily) because the "better" weed is that strong, but rather that the lesser grade is so-called dirt-weed.

I am just amazed at such utter lack of attention to facts. If he had simply said modern day technology has created a more dangerous chemical, then it would have been one thing. But to just pull sh!t out of your a$$ like this and state it as if you really believe it is amazing -- absolutely amazing.

[hifigator]

filo said:

hifigator said:

But I do have a lot of really good friends who smoke daily.

They're your good friends. They smoke a lot of weed.

Correlation? You be the judge. ;D

If you mean am I an unbiased observer, then no. However, if you mean do I have some degree of legitimate experiences to draw upon to arrive at my conclusion, then yes.

Yes, to a degree I might have a "dog in the fight," but because of that dog, I can also speak with some degree of legitimacy rather than blindly recanting what this or that particular group is suggesting.

[hoyatables]

hifigator said:

I did start the thread questioning the criminalization of marijuana, so as to that charge I plead no contest.

But this is an entirely different issue. I mean seriously, here is a high ranking government official who is presumably very familiar with the issues related to his field. Yet he comes out and plays some sort of scare tactic trump card about this not being "your grandfather's marijuana." And then takes it even further by saying that it can hurt you, is highly addictive and can kill you. What kind of credibility does this guy have now? Did he think he was talking to a bunch of kids who just fell off the turnip truck?

I didn't even point out that he said that this stuff is "up to 200% more potent" than outdoor grown pot. Now this is probably just the verbal equivalent of a typo. If he meant to say it that way, then all he said is that some weed is "up to" twice as strong as other weed. Well whoop-tee-do! I think he really meant to say 200 times as strong. That is absolute utter rubbish. Granted I am sure someone could find one type of weed which is 200 times as strong as another, but it isn't (or at least isn't solely/primarily) because the "better" weed is that strong, but rather that the lesser grade is so-called dirt-weed.

I am just amazed at such utter lack of attention to facts. If he had simply said modern day technology has created a more dangerous chemical, then it would have been one thing. But to just pull sh!t out of your a$$ like this and state it as if you really believe it is amazing -- absolutely amazing.

1) Where in the quote does it say that it is "highly" addictive?

2) While this is an article from a Gainesville, in the absence of a formal correction, I'm pretty sure that "200%" means "200%" and not "200 times."

3) Just because something doesn't kill you directly by overdose, doesn't mean that it can't be harmful and deadly in other ways.

I'm pretty sure that he's not the only one pulling things from his butt here . . . .

Oh, and HiFi? "200% more potent" is NOT the equivalent of "twice as potent." "100% more potent" would be the equivalent of "twice as potent." The same teachers that taught me that also taught me that marijuana is bad for me, so I'm going to continue to listen to their advice.

[RDF]

Guess we now know what the "hi" really stands for in "hifigator".

Hey Bob Marley, why don't you take your agenda to become High Times Man of Year back to Spicoli's van and focus on annoying us with your Gator crap some more.

[hoyainspirit]

Thanks for the tip, HFi. I once grew beans hydroponically as a kid. Think I will try this.

[hifigator]

tables, you are technically correct, but it still doesn't change the point. I am trained for percentages to automatically come from 1, that is 100%. I was reading that quote to be "200% as potent." Technically speaking 200% more potent could be three times as strong. Personally, I don't think the guy meant any of these. I think he just got a little tangled up by his words. I think he was just trying to say that this new weed is a lot stronger, in a way similar to when we say giving "110%."

But in any case, that still doesn't change the point. He is making clear efforts to convince others that this new fangled weed is tons stronger and more addictive and deadly. That simply isn't the case.

[hifigator]

rdf said:

Guess we now know what the "hi" really stands for in "hifigator".

Hey Bob Marley, why don't you take your agenda to become High Times Man of Year back to Spicoli's van and focus on annoying us with your Gator crap some more.

Your wish is my command. I will go see if I can dig up some new Gator stuff which will really "interest you."

[hoyarooter]

hifi = stoner

[hifigator]

hoyarooter said:

hifi = stoner

You know it really is kind of ironic, because I don't smoke. Like I said, I have before and there's no way to say I won't ever again. But I honestly don' t smoke in the current sense. But it doesn't bother me and I have nothing wrong with it; it just isn't "my thing." The irony is that I talk about it as much or more than most anyone else. But like I said, I have good friends that do, and to suggest that it is some giant social evil which burdens society is simply false.

[Filo]

hifigator said:

filo said:

They're your good friends. They smoke a lot of weed.

Correlation? You be the judge. ;D

If you mean am I an unbiased observer, then no. However, if you mean do I have some degree of legitimate experiences to draw upon to arrive at my conclusion, then yes.

Yes, to a degree I might have a "dog in the fight," but because of that dog, I can also speak with some degree of legitimacy rather than blindly recanting what this or that particular group is suggesting.

Sorry HiFi, you missed my point. I meant is there a correlation between these people being your good friends and their smoking tons of weed. I guess you can break that down further:

Is there a correlation?

If no, then done.

If yes, then:

a. Do they smoke tons of weed because -- being good friends with HiFi -- they have to in order to stay sane.

or

b. Are they good friends with HiFi because they are always high and, thus, have no concept of interacting with normal human beings.

Sort of a chicken-egg thing there with choice a or b.

[hifigator]

filo said:

hifigator said:

If you mean am I an unbiased observer, then no. However, if you mean do I have some degree of legitimate experiences to draw upon to arrive at my conclusion, then yes.

Yes, to a degree I might have a "dog in the fight," but because of that dog, I can also speak with some degree of legitimacy rather than blindly recanting what this or that particular group is suggesting.

Sorry HiFi, you missed my point. I meant is there a correlation between these people being your good friends and their smoking tons of weed. I guess you can break that down further:

Is there a correlation?

If no, then done.

If yes, then:

a. Do they smoke tons of weed because -- being good friends with HiFi -- they have to in order to stay sane.

or

b. Are they good friends with HiFi because they are always high and, thus, have no concept of interacting with normal human beings.

Sort of a chicken-egg thing there with choice a or b.

I chuckle at your half-hearted attempt at humor at my expense. But unlike others on this board I am not offended. I did think your flipping the chicken-egg reference back around on me was somewhat amusing.

As for my initial comment, it came from a buddy of mine last fall. He wanted to ride up to Knoxville for the Tennessee game and the cars were all full. We ended up shuffling people around to make it all work out and he got grouped up with certain other friends of mine. I had to tell him in advance that he was totally welcome to come along, but that there would be some smoking from some of my friends. He didn't need to partake of course but if he did he was totally welcome to. As long as he understood that and didn't bitch about it he was totally welcome to come along with us. To make a long story short, we had a good trip but when we got back and separated to go our own ways, he said "man you guys smoke 'tons of weed!'" I looked at him sort of strangely and said what do you mean "you guys?" He said I was really "one of them" since I "approved," even though I didn't smoke. I chuckled and told him that I had seen it from both sides, and to trust me: "you don't want to hang around a whole weekend with those guys if they aren't smoking. They can be quite a cranky bunch during a dry spell."

In any case, we are getting off topic. This isn't just another "legalize" thread. The point is here is an authority figure saying that this weed is very harmful to you, increasingly addictive and can kill you! That simply isn't the case and every single study has shown so.

[hoyatables]

hifigator said:

tables, you are technically correct, but it still doesn't change the point. I am trained for percentages to automatically come from 1, that is 100%. I was reading that quote to be "200% as potent." Technically speaking 200% more potent could be three times as strong. Personally, I don't think the guy meant any of these. I think he just got a little tangled up by his words. I think he was just trying to say that this new weed is a lot stronger, in a way similar to when we say giving "110%."

But in any case, that still doesn't change the point. He is making clear efforts to convince others that this new fangled weed is tons stronger and more addictive and deadly. That simply isn't the case.

How do YOU know that he doesn't mean what he says? How do YOU know that he's not correct in his statements about the drug's potency and effect on the human body?

In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary (other than your claims based on, as best I can tell, personal observation and conjecture), I'm going to believe the authority figure over you.

[hifigator]

hoyatables said:

hifigator said:

tables, you are technically correct, but it still doesn't change the point. I am trained for percentages to automatically come from 1, that is 100%. I was reading that quote to be "200% as potent." Technically speaking 200% more potent could be three times as strong. Personally, I don't think the guy meant any of these. I think he just got a little tangled up by his words. I think he was just trying to say that this new weed is a lot stronger, in a way similar to when we say giving "110%."

But in any case, that still doesn't change the point. He is making clear efforts to convince others that this new fangled weed is tons stronger and more addictive and deadly. That simply isn't the case.

How do YOU know that he doesn't mean what he says? How do YOU know that he's not correct in his statements about the drug's potency and effect on the human body?

In the absence of hard evidence to the contrary (other than your claims based on, as best I can tell, personal observation and conjecture), I'm going to believe the authority figure over you.

You are confusing two issues. From the factual standpoint, i.e. taking him literally on what he says, my complaints would center on the fact that he said this new weed will hurt you, will addict you and can kill you. Those are factually questionable at BEST. It is a documented fact that marijuana has NEVER killed anyone directly. Even indirect deaths are extremely rare, and almost exclusively related to DUI. There have been zero instances of deaths due to overdoses of mj. So his statement is wrong.
As for addiction, all studies that I have seen clearly indicate that mj is not physically addictive at all, unlike alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs. So again he states a clear falsehood.

As for the harm issue, that is the one that is debatable. It is probably not good to smoke anything. I wouldn't argue that point. THus it is probably somewhat harmful to smoke mj. Again I wouldn't argue that point. But, the comparative harm of smoking the amount of mj than users do, pales enormously to other risks, most obviously tobacco smoking. Although I haven't conducted a study, I would guess that other jobs such as firemen and barbeque cooks face far worse "harm" from the smoke they are around.

Do you really argue the substance of the debate or are you just arguing with me on principle alone? Or are you just against mj altogether? That is a reasonable position, but one which I would disagree with.

[hifigator]

I didn't finish the second point. When I said I didn't think he meant it that way, my point was that from reading the comments it sounds like a statement that just came out a little wrong. If someone really means to say that it is 3 times as potent, why would he say 200% more potent? He might have chosen the words to make his point sound more dramatic. If so that is at the least deceitful. Or he might have meant something else, like 200 times as potent. Given his other outlandish claims, that wouldn't surprise me a bit. Or he might have simply been making a point and got his words twisted. That makes perfect sense. He was trying to say that it is 'a lot' more potent and his words came out 200 %. Does that reasoning somehow elude you ?