Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Surrey Barn Grow op fire tied the the Hells Angels

Global is reporting that there was a large barn fire in Surrey yesterday morning that contained a legal grow op. In the printed article it states the owner was collecting $6,000 a month rent from the grow and when he asked for an increase they got angry and turned him down. The day before they were supposed to hand over the keys the barn burned down after the product was harvested.

A blog reader who sent me the story claims they saw the live broadcast on Global. They claimed that in the broadcast they saw, the owner outright said the Legal Medicinal Grow was run by the Hells Angels. That part was omitted from the printed version. May of last year the police busted four grow ops in Mission tied to the Hells Angels. Yo bro I aint making this sh*t up.

The online video admits that in Kelowna last year police raided 7 legal grow ops where Outlaw Motorcycle gear was found. Guess what. There's only one OMG in BC. The online video shows the owner stating the tenants who ran the legal grow said they have Hells Angels behind them.


  1. Sanctioned and with full knowledge of The RCMP - without any questions as they do in the S. E. Sector RCMP REGION (Kelowna )! Headquarters of BY BUD!

  2. It was a legal medicinal grow op. The question is, why are the Hells Angels involved with legal medicinal grow ops? The answer is simple. If we legalize pot we don’t remove the Hells Angels from the industry. We just make it impossible for the police to stop them.

    1. The point is that all grow op's have an all hands off from RCMP as long as they are sanctioned by mutual agreement between HA and RCMP!

  3. I think that's a bit of a stretch. The article I linked to claims the police busted four grow ops in Mission tied to the Hells Angels last may. The Global report I linked to claims the police busted 16 grow ops last year alone in Kelowna tied to the Hells Angels. 7 of the 16 grows were legal medicinal grows.That would imply the RCMP are in fact busting Hells Angels grow ops. In my opinion the City of Surrey is devoting too many tax dollars combating grow ops when they should be confronting crack in Newton and Whalley instead.

  4. Yes, it is a simple answer - the money.

    Legalization of marijuana is exactly the wrong thing to do. There is not a single person who is a drug addict who did not first start with using marijuana. It is THE gateway drug. If it were legal, the problems we see today would seem like nothing in a few short years, not to mention what they would be like in a generation.

    Even if it was not THE gateway drug the effects of marijuana alone are severe enough to warrant its removal from access.

    For instance, marijuana impairs short-term recall memory and causes consequence sensitivity impulsivity and attention disorders (Dougherty, D., Mathias, C., Dawes, M., Furr, R. M., Charles, N. E., Liguori, A., Shannon, E. E., & Acheson, A. (2013). Impulsivity, attention, memory, and decision-making among adolescent marijuana users. Psychopharmacology, 226(2), 307-319.).

    Premorbid social and academic functioning disorders and early age onset of psychosis (Compton, M. T., Broussard, B., Ramsay, C. E., & Stewart, T. (2011). Pre-illness cannabis use and the early course of nonaffective psychotic disorders: Associations with premorbid functioning, the prodrome, and mode of onset of psychosis. Schizophrenia Research, 125(1-3), 71-76.).

    Birth defects (Day, N. L., Leech, S. L., & Goldschmidt, L. (2011). The effects of prenatal marijuana exposure on delinquent behaviors are mediated by measures of neurocognitive functioning. Neurotoxicity and Teratology, 33(1), 129 - 136.) & ((2013). Smoking and marijuana use in pregnancy. Community Practitioner, 86(2), 13.) & (Noland, J. S., Singer, L. T., Short, E. J., Minnes, S., Arendt, R. E., Kirchener, H. L., & Bearer, C. (2005). Prenatal drug exposure and selective attention in preschoolers. Neurotoxicity and Teratology, 27(3), 429 - 438.).

    If marijuana were legalized, second-hand smoke would be serious toxic threat and we would see untold damage to future lives.

    As you can see, these are not old studies, nor are they "tired-old rhetoric", but medical/scientific articles from peer-reviewed journals. I placed three for the last because I believe it is one of the most important. I could place dozens of recent peer-reviewed articles on the dangers of marijuana for each subject.

    However, one would think the fact memory loss, attention deficits and psychosis are results of marijuana use, besides the fact it is THE gateway drug would be enough to convince anyone how dangerous it truly is.

    1. Thank-you for this piece, as this is the TRUTH that all humans want to ignore or deny - being that they are driven by GREED and HUMAN INSTABIBLITY!

    2. Correlation equals causation I see. There's a relationship between marijuana and cocaine use in a very, very small percentage of people therefore marijuana use must cause cocaine use. There's a relationship between psychosis and marijuana use in a very, very small percentage of people therefore marijuana use must cause psychosis. Your use of the gateway drug theory makes it abundantly clear you're not a doctor of the medical or academic kind. If you were you'd understand statistics.

      Why don't you cite the boatload of studies that show the potential neuroprotective and other benefits of marijuana? I'll tell you why: You're either trolling or caught up by 50 years of propaganda and hundreds of millions sunk into studies finding the negative effects of marijuana (including I might add some very dubious sttudies). How do I know you're caught up by the propaganda? Because your argument amounts to 'there are negative side effects so it should be illegal.' Well, if that's the position you're going to take then you've got a big hill to climb. 1) You're going to have to explain from a criminological point of view why the potential negative health effects of a minority (much of which may be due to smoking rather than ingesting/vaporizing) outweigh the criminal and therefore broader social consequences for the majority of users. 2) You then need to explain why you're criminalizing alcohol, prescription medications and potentially a whole lot of other things including coffee which have negative side effects but are nonetheless legal.

    3. It's not so much that pot is a gateway drug but rather that those inclined to try it are the same people inclined to try other stimulants. Their risk taker types or anti-establishment to a point and just like to try other thing's.

    4. I believe all powerful drugs legal or illegal have side effects and pot's side effects aren't nearly as damaging as many legal medicine's. Moriphine is a fantastic pain killer and perfectly legal. It's basically the same thing as heroin though so the addictive properties are huge.

  5. Actually, BEER is the gateway drug........ask anyone.

    Oh wait, alcohol is OK.... :rolleyes:

    I'm not defending weed, I'm just tired of the government deciding what people can and cannot do. The government fucks up everything it touches.

    1. I can understand your frustration at the government, especially given the current historical context of control the governments have - which is rather unique historically. While there have been numerous incidents of totalitarian regimes throughout history, at no time like the current has the power of the regimes been so Orwellian.

      I have to disagree with you about alcohol though. If alcohol were the gateway to illicit drug use (and I would agree that beer is generally the gateway for alcohol abuse) then illicit drug use would have been epidemic in the West millennia ago.

      Yet is was not. Contact with China and opium to lead to an historical spike in the 19th Century of abuse but it was not because of alcohol.

      Drug use is certainly not unknown in Muslim countries and alcohol has not been the gateway there.

      There is something more about these drugs (i.e. marijuana) that leads to the ills it is (and has) leading to. It could be a combination of loss of values in the West (values including not only morals and mores but also lack of distinction between freedom and licence, denial of objectivity, etc).

      With all that said, it is an important point you raise about alcohol. I wonder what rates of alcoholism are currently and then compared to the last decades in the West as well as if the definition of accepted alcohol consumption has changed.

      I especially bring up the last point for two reasons. One, binge drinking is currently defined by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA as "when men consume 5 or more drinks, and when women consume 4 or more drinks, in about 2 hours". While the National Health Service (NHS) and National Office of Statistics defines binge drinking as "drinking more than double the government's lower risk guidelines for alcohol in one session" (note no time limit in hours is given). The government advises that people should not regularly drink more than the lower risk guidelines of 3-4 units of alcohol for men (equivalent to a pint and a half of 4% beer) and 2-3 units of alcohol for women (equivalent to a 175 ml glass of wine). ‘Regularly’ means drinking every day or most days of the week.

      Binge drinking for men, therefore, is drinking more than 8 units of alcohol – or about three pints of strong beer. For women, it’s drinking more than 6 units of alcohol, equivalent to two large glasses of wine.

      That's not really a lot when you consider it. Having 3 pints with your mates is not uncommon at a social gathering.

      Alcohol is apparently a factor in:

      - One in three (30%) sexual offences

      - One in three (33%) burglaries

      - One in two (50%) street crimes.

      Two, a current comparison I used in research noted rates of anxiety-related disorders have reached “epidemic” proportions in North America. They have also noted that what is currently considered to be common characteristics of anxiety disorders in elementary and secondary students today are the same characteristics that were reported for in-patients in psychiatric institutions in the 1950's.

  6. So if there was no marijuana, no one would get into other drugs? Further your studies, and find all the things it is good for. And no, I don't smoke it. It's a drop in the bucket when you compare it to alcohol, for the damages it causes to ones person and society as a whole.

    1. You bring up what needs to be noted as a very important distinction. It is not the mere presence of marijuana that has caused illicit drug use. It is the misuse of the plant.

      An example of what I mean by this is that cocaine was originally intended for use for eye surgery (it would be placed on the eye). It was not intended to be inhaled. One is the proper use of something, the other is the improper use of something.

      This can be easily compared with petrol. Petrol is used for the operation of internal combustion engines. That is the proper use. Yet, inhalation of petrol is used for other more nefarious purposes. That is the improper use (abuse).

      I would be interested to see statistics on comparison rates of drug abuse vs alcohol use (I'm not sure if you refer to abuse of alcohol or just use of alcohol in regards to damages however, I think use of illicit drugs vs just use of alcohol would be a comparison that while one may claim to be unfair in favour of illicit drugs I believe would still clearly show the damages of illicit drug use far outweigh those of alcohol usage.

      It may be hard to find comparative studies, but please research them and post them as I would be very interested in reading them.

      I think it is clear you have not spent a lot of time in areas or around people who use illicit drugs and have seen what is has done to them, their families, their community and society. Usually these people get to a certain point and then no longer associate with their former peers and seem to "disappear". "Out of sight, out of mind", so to say.

      I believe Agent K has a rather large amount of experience in witnessing those effected by drugs at the mid - lower end of the scale.

      There is a "something" that takes hold of a person addicted to drugs (whether it be alcohol or otherwise) and the effects on their lives really intensify at that point. Most never come back. We, as a society seem to just "let them" continue their "downward spiral" and are really complicit in their suicides.

  7. Personally, I don’t have a problem with pot. I don’t smoke it myself but recognize that smoking pot is completely different than smoke crack or crystal meth. However, I will agree way too many people out there smoke way too much pot. There are a couple of young guys at work that blaze all the time. They have no work ethic and don’t work very smart at all. It’s really noticeable in their productivity.

    Interesting point about drug use being nonexistent in Muslim countries. Kinda like how the Taliban brought opium production in Afghanistan to a grinding halt right before the allied invasion which reversed that trend completely.

  8. Having previous experience with all of these drugs, I will tell you that I never got the urge to snort a line of coke while being stoned on weed. Booze was always the trigger to dabble into harder drugs.
    I don't do drugs anymore, but it makes me laugh when people say that marijuana is a gateway drug. Utter nonsense!

  9. Having previous experience with all of these drugs, I will tell you that I never got the urge to snort a line of coke while being stoned on weed. Booze was always the trigger to dabble into harder drugs.
    I don't do drugs anymore, but it makes me laugh when people say that marijuana is a gateway drug. Utter nonsense!

    1. I was not sure which of your multiple profile personalities to address, this one appears to have a name, though.

      I think you may have misread what was written, no one is saying that you have to be in a condition of being stoned on one drug to then try the next "hardest" drug.

      Tell us, which illicit drug did you try first in your life?

  10. I think he is saying that pot isn't a gateway drug. it is everywhere. How many pot smokers are out there? Are they all potential heroin junkies? You can find pot smokers everywhere. If I wanted to smoke a joint right now, I bet at least half a dozen people working for me right now could find me one in minutes. So I would think that most people that do get in other drugs, did in fact, smoke pot first. Availability yes, gateway no.
    Also, Dr. Whatever, Google pot vs. alcohol for medical damage. As many studies as you can produce there is an opposite reaction.

    1. Jim,

      There is a reason why google or wikipedia are not valid sources. They are not peer-reviewed. I do not believe elementary schools will accept wikipedia as a valid research/study source. Post-secondary institutes would return your paper and tell you to rewrite it - if you did not want your mark to rhyme with hero.

      Actually, most profs would just give you the low mark and let you figure out for yourself what you need to do to be successful in your first year.

      I realise google is a search engine and not a source, however, the citations on there are ranked by payment - also "hightimes" and "the weed blog" are not very unbiased neutral sources, are they? Nor would CNN be - media bias is actual worse than the inaccuracies of wikipedia.

      If you want to actually do valid research, you have to use peer-reviewed journals - this means that a person cannot just publish something on their own - it is reviewed prior to publishing to ensure it is valid and it is held up to criticism and open to such by those with valid credentials. Google can never give you that.

      You need to go to your local university library for a start.

      Regarding "as many studies as you can produce there is an opposite reaction" - that is false. That is a law of physics and deals with actions. However, for any study to be valid, it must produce verifiable, repeatable, evidence based information. You cannot have two studies that study the same thing and have them show the opposite. One or both would be invalid.

      Regardless, what is the point is that it is misuse of a substance that leads to more abuse and to addictions and crime. Misuse is not overuse. It is misuse (i.e. cocaine was developed for eye surgery - any use outside of that realm for recreational purposes is misuse).

      Merely because something is "everywhere" does not make it acceptable. Organized crime is everywhere (that is the purpose of the blog).

      This is not a personal attack, but any extension of your 'logic' would mean that organized crime is acceptable because it is everywhere.

  11. I find this discussion somewhat amusing. Although I think calling pot the gateway drug is really over used, his question about what was the first illicit drug you tried was pretty funny.

  12. I've got $20 says it was alcohol, my reasoning being that most people have their first drink while underage, hence illicit. You could split hairs about it being a "licit" drug being used illicitly if you wanted, but I think my point is pretty clear, "which drug was used first", and it's going to be alcohol, hands down.

    1. I would not say your reasoning is faulty in this. Culturally alcohol can present in many different ways. For instance, in Germany fermented alcohol (beer and wine) is permitted at 14 years of age with parental supervision while it is 16 in public without supervision. While in India, hard alcohol is restricted to 25 years of age.

      Given the frontal lobe (which is responsible for maturity levels) continues to develop until 21 years of age, in the average person, I believe the USA's drinking age of 21 is a much better age than Canada's at 18 and 19, depending upon the province.

      I will be one of the first to grant there is something potentially inherent in alcohol that can cause certain individuals to overtly attached to alcohol (it's been years since I've studied this so I'm not going to state anything concrete off the top of my head) and its influence upon people.

      However, Western Civilization and Middle Eastern (note it was not until the invasions by the Muslims that alcohol was made illegal in Middle Eastern countries) countries have had access to alcohol since the beginning of recorded history (and archaeological finds have shown beer and wine making in Britain apparently before recorded history). However, if alcohol was the prime (prime in the true sense, that of first, not dominant) factor in illicit drug use then the history of Western Civilization would be one of drug addictions.

      Yet, that is not the case. It is only in the modern period that such drug additions have reared their heads.

      Maybe we should combine our $20's and buy Agent K (and each other) a pint of Guiness and Kilkenny and discuss this more in depth someday.


Comments are moderated so there will be a delay before they appear on the blog.