Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here, If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here, If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/us/california-marijuana-growers.html
129 comments
We have too many things that are felonies. A proper punishment would be to clean up all their mess and pay a fine.
"Should be a serious felony," is how we got into the police state we are approaching. Just because it's emotionally distasteful to uglify nature doesn't mean it warrants years in prison, never being able to work again, and never being able to vote again.
"Should be a serious felony," is how we got into the police state we are approaching. Just because it's emotionally distasteful to uglify nature doesn't mean it warrants years in prison, never being able to work again, and never being able to vote again.
Some things can't be easily fixed. It can take years or even decades to restore damaged wilderness to something approaching its natural state.
Yes, I mean if it is something like toxic waste like Love Canal, that's one thing, but if it's dumping trash, that's easily remedied. Also, once the trash is removed, nature will typically revert to it's natural state all by itself. Humankind has to actively prevent nature from engulfing cities.
But to say, "they left trash everywhere, FELONY!" is a seriously emotional reaction. Criminal justice should be a rational not emotional thing. Is dumping trash the same thing as rape, robbery or murder? Certainly not. Felonies should be reserved for the harshest crimes against people, not littering or ingesting things.
The US has more people incarcerated, not only per capita, but as a total number than any other country in the developed world. This includes China. That statistic shows a serious, systemic problem with our justice system.
http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-popula...
The American prison system is massive. So massive that its estimated turnover of $74 billion eclipses the GDP of 133 nations.
https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-economics-of-the-america...
But to say, "they left trash everywhere, FELONY!" is a seriously emotional reaction. Criminal justice should be a rational not emotional thing. Is dumping trash the same thing as rape, robbery or murder? Certainly not. Felonies should be reserved for the harshest crimes against people, not littering or ingesting things.
The US has more people incarcerated, not only per capita, but as a total number than any other country in the developed world. This includes China. That statistic shows a serious, systemic problem with our justice system.
http://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-popula...
The American prison system is massive. So massive that its estimated turnover of $74 billion eclipses the GDP of 133 nations.
https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-economics-of-the-america...
Kind of silly to compare China — they have very, very few murderers, drug traffickers and rapists in prison — their rapidly enforced death penalty sees to that.
Even if China imprisoned rather than executed, we'd still have a much higher number imprisoned. The US prison population is 33% higher total than China and almost 7x higher per capita. I guess you don't realize how messed up our justice system is. When you look at the numbers, it's a real eye opener. China is a distant #2 in total imprisoned yet they are 4x more populated than the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China#Ra...
The number of executions has dropped significantly since the Supreme People’s Court regained the power to review all death sentences in 2007; for instance, the Dui Hua Foundation estimates that China executed 12,000 people in 2002, 6,500 people in 2007, and roughly 2,400 in 2013 and 2014.
For actual numbers, we have 2.1 million people imprisoned and China has 1.6 million.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China#Ra...
The number of executions has dropped significantly since the Supreme People’s Court regained the power to review all death sentences in 2007; for instance, the Dui Hua Foundation estimates that China executed 12,000 people in 2002, 6,500 people in 2007, and roughly 2,400 in 2013 and 2014.
For actual numbers, we have 2.1 million people imprisoned and China has 1.6 million.
To be fair we probably have more violent and incorrigible people than China. For whatever reason.
I'm really surprised at least several people don't believe this may be the case.
Suspecting ideology is maybe being substituted for objective reality?
The "line" is that we have so many people locked up because of unjust (racist, drugs, whatever) policies. And no doubt this is a very large component of the problem.
However, a very large number of people in prisons are dangerous or violent people who shouldn't be out in society at all and I don't think we could say their incarnation is discriminatory or unjust (although we could justifiably speak about how much of an anti pattern the current prison system.. but that's another topic).
Note: I don't say all, or even most in prisons fit this bill but many do.
I guess the point is a question. Why do we have such large number of violent and criminally minded people in the US? Do we have a larger number than China even taking into account population size differences? I bet we do.
TLDR, criminal justice system is broken in many ways, agreed. But I posit we (in the US) have a more violent and criminal population also. I think this is worth exploring rather than just parroting whatever anti-establishment line is in vogue at the moment.
Suspecting ideology is maybe being substituted for objective reality?
The "line" is that we have so many people locked up because of unjust (racist, drugs, whatever) policies. And no doubt this is a very large component of the problem.
However, a very large number of people in prisons are dangerous or violent people who shouldn't be out in society at all and I don't think we could say their incarnation is discriminatory or unjust (although we could justifiably speak about how much of an anti pattern the current prison system.. but that's another topic).
Note: I don't say all, or even most in prisons fit this bill but many do.
I guess the point is a question. Why do we have such large number of violent and criminally minded people in the US? Do we have a larger number than China even taking into account population size differences? I bet we do.
TLDR, criminal justice system is broken in many ways, agreed. But I posit we (in the US) have a more violent and criminal population also. I think this is worth exploring rather than just parroting whatever anti-establishment line is in vogue at the moment.
Just to add, we can't blame the large prison population on drug offenses alone, although we do jail a lot of people for drugs (and should jail none IMOP) it's not the whole picture, particularly with state prisons where only about 1 in 5 people are jailed for drug offenses (Violent crimes being the biggest part of that pie).
Federal Drug incarcerations are a much higher percent, but this isn't low level users either.
When we ask, "why do we have so many people locked up?" we also should ask "why do we have so many people we need to lock up"? What the hell is our problem as a society that it's like this?
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html
Federal Drug incarcerations are a much higher percent, but this isn't low level users either.
When we ask, "why do we have so many people locked up?" we also should ask "why do we have so many people we need to lock up"? What the hell is our problem as a society that it's like this?
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html
We may, but do you really think we have the most violent people in the world? Do you think we have 7x more violent people per capita compared to #2 China?
That just doesn't add up.
That just doesn't add up.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/China/Unite...
According to this, the US vs China has:
6 times the amount of robberies per capita.
4 times the amount of murders per capita.
8 time the amount of burglaries per capita.
and...83 times the amount of assaults per capita (??) <page 2 on chart>.
It also says the US has 30% more people incarcerated than China which at ~4 times the population is indeed ~7 times the per capita incarceration rate. But given the stats above (along with our massive drug use and propensity to lock people up for that) it's not entirely unbelievable either.
I don't think the US has the most violent people in the world, no. But I do suspect the US has the most violent people among the subset of countries with the resources and framework to prosecute and pay for incarceration for that many people.
According to this, the US vs China has:
6 times the amount of robberies per capita.
4 times the amount of murders per capita.
8 time the amount of burglaries per capita.
and...83 times the amount of assaults per capita (??) <page 2 on chart>.
It also says the US has 30% more people incarcerated than China which at ~4 times the population is indeed ~7 times the per capita incarceration rate. But given the stats above (along with our massive drug use and propensity to lock people up for that) it's not entirely unbelievable either.
I don't think the US has the most violent people in the world, no. But I do suspect the US has the most violent people among the subset of countries with the resources and framework to prosecute and pay for incarceration for that many people.
I scrolled year to year on that chart, and there are a lot of gaps, and all the years I looked at only had a few data points. I went back to 1988 and couldn't find the assault stats that showed up in the summary.
I suspect it would be difficult to find an actual breakdown of crime stats in China. It would be useful to compare it with a country that is more transparent with that sort of information.
Here's a blurb from the site:
The actual crime rate in China has so far been difficult to assess and confirm. Official statistics from the Chinese government says that crime in China is significantly lower than that of more advanced nations, including and especially the United States. Official estimates say that murder rate in China, for instance, is 5 times lower than that of the US.
#3 is Russia, which I would guess to be equally difficult to get statistics on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
Also, looking at the US crime stats, they are spotty as well. The assault rate you noted is from 1999, near our peak. Even with that we aren't #1 on almost all of the compared countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-Sta...
But some of your conclusions are right. The US incarcerates a lot for drug use, and incarcerates a lot longer for any crime. Furthermore, it's difficult to lead a normal life in the US with a record of incarceration which leads to more incarceration.
I suspect it would be difficult to find an actual breakdown of crime stats in China. It would be useful to compare it with a country that is more transparent with that sort of information.
Here's a blurb from the site:
The actual crime rate in China has so far been difficult to assess and confirm. Official statistics from the Chinese government says that crime in China is significantly lower than that of more advanced nations, including and especially the United States. Official estimates say that murder rate in China, for instance, is 5 times lower than that of the US.
#3 is Russia, which I would guess to be equally difficult to get statistics on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2...
Also, looking at the US crime stats, they are spotty as well. The assault rate you noted is from 1999, near our peak. Even with that we aren't #1 on almost all of the compared countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/profiles/United-Sta...
But some of your conclusions are right. The US incarcerates a lot for drug use, and incarcerates a lot longer for any crime. Furthermore, it's difficult to lead a normal life in the US with a record of incarceration which leads to more incarceration.
I think I read somewhere that a large number of sexual assaults (believe it was Hong Kong) go unreported. Maybe reporting is part of the difference.
I do intuitively believe the US has a higher violent crime rate but 83 times the amount of assaults per capita seems a bit much.
I do intuitively believe the US has a higher violent crime rate but 83 times the amount of assaults per capita seems a bit much.
The problem isn’t trash, it’s clearcutting and soil erosion. Neither can be quickly or easily fixed, erosion especially isn’t going to be repaired without intervention.
OK, we've caught the perpetrators, spent a lot of taxpayers' money on keeping them in prison, then pushed out, mostly unable to work (except low-paying jobs), almost inviting them to do some worse offense just to feed themselves.
How did all that help restore the ruined patch of land?
How did all that help restore the ruined patch of land?
Deterrent for others. Weed farming is lucrative, even large fines wouldn’t be a large deterrant.
Ruining a person's life is not a good deterrent.
Scaring people away by shooting at them should be a more serious offence than just making a mess. Of course it already is, so I don't really see the point of adding more felonies.
Really the problem isn't that people demand more and more felonies, but rather that they demand felonies for things that are already illegal.
Really the problem isn't that people demand more and more felonies, but rather that they demand felonies for things that are already illegal.
[deleted]
With legalization comes the ability to use existing agricultural land without fear, effectively rendering this point moot.
Do you have further reading on these events? I agree with you 100% but I would argue that these growers are probably some of the lesser evils facing our public lands.
Search for "trespass grow" to find a lot of magazine articles and videos on the subject.
I may shake my head at clear-cutting and overgrazing but I'll say that I've never been chased off public land by a rancher nor fired upon by lumberjacks. The marijuana growers are ... unique.
I may shake my head at clear-cutting and overgrazing but I'll say that I've never been chased off public land by a rancher nor fired upon by lumberjacks. The marijuana growers are ... unique.
You might be surprised by the scale. I know a few folks doing water management in California, and they've all independently brought up the exacerbating effects of unmonitored but significant water usage by illegal farms during the last few years of drought.
Don't have a link handy, though.
Don't have a link handy, though.
As a cyclist I shudder at the thought of motorcyclists ruining the trails, making noise and generally trashing the place.
My hill walking dad curses the mountain bikers and their damage to the terrain - leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but memories.
My hill walking dad curses the mountain bikers and their damage to the terrain - leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but memories.
I hear you. The thing about a national forest is there are already roads, and already the sounds of logging. These are working lands. We set aside wilderness areas without roads, that are not even welcoming to horses, for those seeking peace.
Enjoy your lands.
Enjoy your lands.
Pretty common occurrence - http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AM0C3
I'd rather run across an old composting toilet while biking than an old meth lab, so you have a point
Legal weed is not "almost here". It's still a schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal level, and in theory you can spend a year in a federal penitentiary for possession of any amount.
That's what I'd like to see changed. This legal twilight zone isn't good for anybody.
That's what I'd like to see changed. This legal twilight zone isn't good for anybody.
I'm not sure what our government is thinking.
Police in 2016 used a "military helicopter to descend on an 81-year-old Grandmother's home to seize a single marijuana plant."
"Mr Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges."
So, give up your fourth amendment rights, or else? For having 1 marijuana plant?
Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/national-guard-and-police-in-military-style-helicopter-descend-on-81-year-old-s-home-to-seize-one-a7348666.html
Police in 2016 used a "military helicopter to descend on an 81-year-old Grandmother's home to seize a single marijuana plant."
"Mr Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges."
So, give up your fourth amendment rights, or else? For having 1 marijuana plant?
Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/national-guard-and-police-in-military-style-helicopter-descend-on-81-year-old-s-home-to-seize-one-a7348666.html
Two things:
1. Legal weed is not almost here because of the 68' treaty that strictly prohibits it. That's the reason we see all of these "decriminalized" and "tolerated" scenarios. No one has yet to decide to just ignore the (very tiny) part of the full text that covers cannabis and no one is willing to step away from the rest of the text. Canada is showing signs they might do it, which will trigger a landslide, but at the moment that's only speculation. My country would have passed legalization months ago if not for this treaty :/. So the USA screwed everybody in 68' and they are still doing it.
2. The twilight zone is good for exactly one group of people: illegal dealers and growers. Imagine: the police don't prosecute you as aggressively anymore (or at all), the populous treats it as a legal substance, that's still incredibly popular (funny, it's culturally accepted, but still an act of defiance against the authority) ... and you have no taxes because you still can't buy it legally. I've personally seen dealers agents masquerading as pro-canabis campaigners derail political alliances that would have made realistic progress towards legalization.
1. Legal weed is not almost here because of the 68' treaty that strictly prohibits it. That's the reason we see all of these "decriminalized" and "tolerated" scenarios. No one has yet to decide to just ignore the (very tiny) part of the full text that covers cannabis and no one is willing to step away from the rest of the text. Canada is showing signs they might do it, which will trigger a landslide, but at the moment that's only speculation. My country would have passed legalization months ago if not for this treaty :/. So the USA screwed everybody in 68' and they are still doing it.
2. The twilight zone is good for exactly one group of people: illegal dealers and growers. Imagine: the police don't prosecute you as aggressively anymore (or at all), the populous treats it as a legal substance, that's still incredibly popular (funny, it's culturally accepted, but still an act of defiance against the authority) ... and you have no taxes because you still can't buy it legally. I've personally seen dealers agents masquerading as pro-canabis campaigners derail political alliances that would have made realistic progress towards legalization.
> "Canada is showing signs they might do it, which will trigger a landslide, but at the moment that's only speculation."
Speculation? The federal government of Canada has passed a law to legalize cannabis as on July 1st, 2018. Implementation is left to the provinces, who can set target prices, who/how will sell it, how much it will be taxed, etc, but the law also explicitly allows shipping cannabis through the post across provinces, as a way to go around any restriction a province might impose. The effects are already very present on the stock market. This will have a very big impact on the US, one can suspect the same as the end of alcohol prohibition in the 30s (where Canada played an important role).
Speculation? The federal government of Canada has passed a law to legalize cannabis as on July 1st, 2018. Implementation is left to the provinces, who can set target prices, who/how will sell it, how much it will be taxed, etc, but the law also explicitly allows shipping cannabis through the post across provinces, as a way to go around any restriction a province might impose. The effects are already very present on the stock market. This will have a very big impact on the US, one can suspect the same as the end of alcohol prohibition in the 30s (where Canada played an important role).
Seems I have been, and not been, missinformed :). They have passed a law, but as it does not yet break the treaties they still have "time" to do something about it.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3606927/after-blowing-july-1-deadl...
Ah, good point, but that article also mentions (towards the end) that they are likely to just ignore the treaty, as Uruguay has (and some US states). They can also demonstrate that they are legalizing as a more efficient way to control/limit drug use.
As a Uruguayan I can tell you that unfortunately, ignoring treatises has had consequences - the U.S. banking system has issued some dire threats for us.
American banks, including Bank of America, said that they would stop doing business with banks in Uruguay that provide services to anything marijuana-connected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/americas/uruguay-ma...
American banks, including Bank of America, said that they would stop doing business with banks in Uruguay that provide services to anything marijuana-connected.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/americas/uruguay-ma...
Likely, yes and I think that is probably the right course of action, but IANAL, at least politically.
As I understand the US situation the federal level, the signatory of the treaty, didn't actually legalize anything. The states did, in breach of the federal law, but they are not signatories of the treaty.
As I understand the US situation the federal level, the signatory of the treaty, didn't actually legalize anything. The states did, in breach of the federal law, but they are not signatories of the treaty.
> No one has yet to decide to just ignore the (very tiny) part of the full text that covers cannabis and no one is willing to step away from the rest of the text.
Uruguay has fully legalized - not just decriminalized - cannabis, and they're a signatory of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which I think you are referring to? (although it was adopted in 1961, not 1968)
Uruguay has fully legalized - not just decriminalized - cannabis, and they're a signatory of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which I think you are referring to? (although it was adopted in 1961, not 1968)
Yes, the one. Unfortunately at least for my country Uruguay does not seem to be a valid trendsetter and are still waiting for a western nation to do it.
It's good for massive companies positioning themselves to monopolize the legal market when it emerges, bad for everyone else.
> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states.
Here lies the unique situation in California; even before legalization in California, it was the home of not just it's black market cannabis industry but it was already a supplier to other parts of the country. It seems then that state level legalization will not be able to fully replace the illegal cannabis industry in California. This is a really interesting problem since other legal states are inclined to not push for legal interstate trade of cannabis.
If MJ was legal federally, what framework for trade would states be inclined to support? It seems it wouldn't be in most states favor to want trade since CA and a few large producers (or early legalizers) would capture the market. Perhaps weed that crosses state lines would be taxed in both states allowing states with shortages like NV to import weed initially while still giving local growers the advantage of a lower total tax rate.
Here lies the unique situation in California; even before legalization in California, it was the home of not just it's black market cannabis industry but it was already a supplier to other parts of the country. It seems then that state level legalization will not be able to fully replace the illegal cannabis industry in California. This is a really interesting problem since other legal states are inclined to not push for legal interstate trade of cannabis.
If MJ was legal federally, what framework for trade would states be inclined to support? It seems it wouldn't be in most states favor to want trade since CA and a few large producers (or early legalizers) would capture the market. Perhaps weed that crosses state lines would be taxed in both states allowing states with shortages like NV to import weed initially while still giving local growers the advantage of a lower total tax rate.
Just look at how alcohol is taxed. This is a solved problem.
> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market: marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California.
Interstate cannabis transport legalization appears to be the hurdle to California's reaping tax benefits from the industry. How will legalization in a few New England states impact Northern California's economy?
Interstate cannabis transport legalization appears to be the hurdle to California's reaping tax benefits from the industry. How will legalization in a few New England states impact Northern California's economy?
We are supposed to feel sympathetic for growers who operated illegally and now struggle to comply with new laws? All while other operators are complying with the same laws?
Remember, the operators complying with those laws are still operating illegally. Why would you comply with a law that makes punishment more likely and damaging? The ones registering are likely a combination of those looking to head a court case and entrepreneurs setting up future publicity.
Do you recognize that these prohibition laws were unjust? If they were, then what does someone's defiance of those laws have to do with anything? Shouldn't they in fact be praised for standing up to oppression?
Or do you think these laws were just after all?
Or do you think these laws were just after all?
"standing up to oppression" is not a "get out of being an asshole free" card
Okay? And where does the asshole part come in?
A great many of the illegal pot farmers damage public (and private) lands, screw with the water supply, pollute rivers, and leave trash behind. Not to mention growing country has a higher rate of violent crime than even LA County. That's where the asshole part comes in.
(All of this is right from the article.)
(All of this is right from the article.)
kakarot(1)
We have laws, and we have mechanisms to change the laws. There are consequences to breaking laws. We live in a society.
Since this is about the US, the country literally was founded by people disregarding the laws because they were unjust. The law is the law but that's it. Break in a law isnt inherently immoral
No, but just saying so doesn't make breaking this law somehow ok. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it immoral.
Look, these people have been growing for a long time, illegally. I don't have a problem with the growing itself, but they've been making a mess of Mendocino County for years, and they're not exactly all nice people (violent crime rate up there is pretty high). Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. Sure, some of the new requirements will hurt. But overall we'll end up with a safer growing situation, and things will be done in a way that doesn't damage the land.
Look, these people have been growing for a long time, illegally. I don't have a problem with the growing itself, but they've been making a mess of Mendocino County for years, and they're not exactly all nice people (violent crime rate up there is pretty high). Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. Sure, some of the new requirements will hurt. But overall we'll end up with a safer growing situation, and things will be done in a way that doesn't damage the land.
>Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way.
No, they don't. Following that framework is admitting you are breaking a federal law. It bars you from being successful in businesses, make a lot of money and the feds have more reason to target you.
No, they don't. Following that framework is admitting you are breaking a federal law. It bars you from being successful in businesses, make a lot of money and the feds have more reason to target you.
True, and I agree that people doing these illegal grows in public land and threatening people are acting immorally. Like the other commenter said though, the framework is not there for legal marijuana production, it just removes one of the layers of illegality
> We live in a society.
A mature society is one whose people can distinguish between behavior which is actually anti-social from behavior which is merely proscribed by the state.
The act of breaking bad laws - and supporting those who break bad laws - is central to a functioning and mature society.
A mature society is one whose people can distinguish between behavior which is actually anti-social from behavior which is merely proscribed by the state.
The act of breaking bad laws - and supporting those who break bad laws - is central to a functioning and mature society.
Sounds like you think your opinion of what laws are just outweighs the democratic process that established those laws.
We all can choose to break laws. Most of us break laws every day. But, when you break laws, you do so at risk of being punished.
Illegal growers chose to break laws in exchange for profit. Now, some are busted.
Other operators chose not to break those laws. Perhaps, instead, they worked to legalize growing, and are now complying and profiting.
That's life in society.
We all can choose to break laws. Most of us break laws every day. But, when you break laws, you do so at risk of being punished.
Illegal growers chose to break laws in exchange for profit. Now, some are busted.
Other operators chose not to break those laws. Perhaps, instead, they worked to legalize growing, and are now complying and profiting.
That's life in society.
> We all can choose to break laws.
With the volume, breadth, and obscurity of the federal register, I don't think it's practical to "choose" not to break laws in the USA today.
> Sounds like you think your opinion of what laws are just outweighs the democratic process that established those laws.
I certainly don't think that the "democratic process" is some sort of fairy dust that you can sprinkle on laws which are contrary to nature and to the constitution and suddenly make them legitimate. If this is "my opinion," then yes, your statement is entirely accurate.
There are democratic traditions that are more akin to what you are describing, but in common law republics, the legitimacy of the law is constrained by the limited and enumerated power of the state and is not boundless unto whatever the "democratic process" may dictate.
> Other operators chose not to break those laws.
This is entirely a semantic turn - by saying "those laws" in reference to the State (capital S) laws in question in this article, you have intentionally ignored the fact that the US Government has its own (obviously illegitimate in light of the history of the 18th and 21st amendments) laws which also proscribe this conduct.
So there is no way to "choose not to break" the laws regarding cultivating of cannabis.
> That's life in society.
If you are holding high the state of drug policy in the USA in 2017 as evidence of "life in society," I want to encourage you to raise your standards somewhat.
With the volume, breadth, and obscurity of the federal register, I don't think it's practical to "choose" not to break laws in the USA today.
> Sounds like you think your opinion of what laws are just outweighs the democratic process that established those laws.
I certainly don't think that the "democratic process" is some sort of fairy dust that you can sprinkle on laws which are contrary to nature and to the constitution and suddenly make them legitimate. If this is "my opinion," then yes, your statement is entirely accurate.
There are democratic traditions that are more akin to what you are describing, but in common law republics, the legitimacy of the law is constrained by the limited and enumerated power of the state and is not boundless unto whatever the "democratic process" may dictate.
> Other operators chose not to break those laws.
This is entirely a semantic turn - by saying "those laws" in reference to the State (capital S) laws in question in this article, you have intentionally ignored the fact that the US Government has its own (obviously illegitimate in light of the history of the 18th and 21st amendments) laws which also proscribe this conduct.
So there is no way to "choose not to break" the laws regarding cultivating of cannabis.
> That's life in society.
If you are holding high the state of drug policy in the USA in 2017 as evidence of "life in society," I want to encourage you to raise your standards somewhat.
A series of vacuous tautologies that would be equally valid as a contemporary defense of slavery is hardly compelling.
Until one or two years ago it was illegal in Japan and Sweden to dance in public after midnight.
People living in those countries routinely broke the law without consequences, but those countries still managed to function pretty well as a society.
People living in those countries routinely broke the law without consequences, but those countries still managed to function pretty well as a society.
So you would vote to convict Jim Crow violators? Put Rosa Parks in jail?
Rosa Parks is a civil rights hero because she put herself at risk of punishment. That personal risk was part of many motivating factors that fueled the new legislation that broke Jim Crow.
So, yes, I do think Rosa Parks should have been arrested (as she was). In fact, it would've been worse if she was left alone -- her defiance would've been a non-event.
I do not think you're too familiar with Rosa Parks story. here's a link to help you out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
Lastly, I think it's rude to equate Rosa Parks to these rogue pot browsers. That said, I think we should bust these law breakers -- and if that upsets enough people, then we'll enact legal changes.
So, yes, I do think Rosa Parks should have been arrested (as she was). In fact, it would've been worse if she was left alone -- her defiance would've been a non-event.
I do not think you're too familiar with Rosa Parks story. here's a link to help you out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks
Lastly, I think it's rude to equate Rosa Parks to these rogue pot browsers. That said, I think we should bust these law breakers -- and if that upsets enough people, then we'll enact legal changes.
[deleted]
[deleted]
kakarot(1)
illegally? So? At one time it was legal to own a person. In some parts of the world it still is. Even the west has come up with legal reasons to imprison, torture, and kill people who have not faced a trial or worse, said nothing while their allies do it. Legal and illegal has got nothing to do with right and wrong.
I think comparing pot growing to slavery is a bit much.
Regardless, the people of California have voted by majority to decide how pot should be grown, sold, and taxed. You can disagree with it all you want, but unless you want to change the minds of the residents of CA and get it changed, this is how it is.
Illegal pot farms have been damaging public and private lands in northern CA for years, and now we have a legal framework to let people grow in an environmentally-sound way. There's also been a ton of violence involved in illegal pot farming. A legal framework could, and most likely will, make that safer.
It would be great if growers could get their work done in a sustainable, non-violent manner, but apparently they can't. So they get rules. And I have no problem with those who don't follow them getting fined or jailed.
Regardless, the people of California have voted by majority to decide how pot should be grown, sold, and taxed. You can disagree with it all you want, but unless you want to change the minds of the residents of CA and get it changed, this is how it is.
Illegal pot farms have been damaging public and private lands in northern CA for years, and now we have a legal framework to let people grow in an environmentally-sound way. There's also been a ton of violence involved in illegal pot farming. A legal framework could, and most likely will, make that safer.
It would be great if growers could get their work done in a sustainable, non-violent manner, but apparently they can't. So they get rules. And I have no problem with those who don't follow them getting fined or jailed.
[deleted]
You failed to change my opinion.
For them to struggle at something that (per your own comparison) you seem to think of as possible to do in a way so that it is worthy of praise (because you've compared them to ones who could do it in a praise-worthy way) shouldn't really be something that you have no sympathy towards, if you want everyone to do it the best way..? [Unless you mean that they are
intentionally 'cheating', so to speak, and capable but self-centered]
Indeed, reason by analogy is not enough.
Edit: but there is a connection between farming and slavery, however feeble today. Keeping drugs illegal creates opportunity for quasi-slavery on far away large scale farms, I imagine.
Edit: but there is a connection between farming and slavery, however feeble today. Keeping drugs illegal creates opportunity for quasi-slavery on far away large scale farms, I imagine.
I don't want to be rude about this, but that's exactly the same thing all other `producer` country had to carry with. The problem of legalization, is not just about the use, is about the whole chain.
I've seen this exactly things in my country, Colombia, and plus the social issue of mafias and drug dealing are my only reasons, personally (i don't encourage to not do it or judge people who just don't care about it), against it's use.
I've seen this exactly things in my country, Colombia, and plus the social issue of mafias and drug dealing are my only reasons, personally (i don't encourage to not do it or judge people who just don't care about it), against it's use.
The marijuana market is rapidly changing in Northern California to benefit the large scale growers. It's extremely hard for small growers to sell just a few pounds of weed. I know Garberville is facing a small recession right now. Anyway, I'm tired of being nervous driving in my forests. I've heard that you really don't want to annoy the Bulgarians living in South East Humboldt.
I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much about weed abuse. Though we've come across the problem of alcoholism in those days too.
The British studied this very question in India (where such use was pervasive) back in 19th century. Here's what they found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission
"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ...
In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ...
In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ...
Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission
"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. ...
In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. ...
In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. ...
Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable."
These findings kinda still holds true upon general observation.
Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it.
It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.).
More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.
It's hard to make sweeping generalizations about its historical use but it's safe to say that the psychoactive contents of ancient strains of cannabis was much lower than today's and its use was, while not exclusively so, often restricted to rituals and people for whom the psychoactive effects were socially important (shamans etc.).
More recently, up through the 19th century, cannabis was recreationally used by plenty of people with no legal preventatives and it certainly doesn't seem like everyone were "potheads". But many of them weren't white, which, to the legal minds of the time, was just about as bad.
> Marijuana didn't exactly become illegal in the United States because of its effects. It became illegal because of who was using it.
Is it really the case? I know it comes up in every discussion about cannabis but I'm wondering if it is really the case. Cannabis (and most psychoactive drugs with the exception of alcohol) are banned in most countries in the world and it has nothing to do with harassing minorities.
Is it really the case? I know it comes up in every discussion about cannabis but I'm wondering if it is really the case. Cannabis (and most psychoactive drugs with the exception of alcohol) are banned in most countries in the world and it has nothing to do with harassing minorities.
The few countries that banned it early on, usually did so because of its vague association with opium, which was seen (rightly so!) as a serious problem.
For those that banned it later, it's usually because they signed one of the global drug control treaties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
Both have been heavily pushed by US (indeed, it effectively organized the first one), and in both cases US was the one that targeted cannabis specifically. In the Single Convention, US was the one that demanded it to be placed on the most restrictive Schedule available.
Here's a good read about all this: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-rise-and-decline-of-c...
For those that banned it later, it's usually because they signed one of the global drug control treaties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
Both have been heavily pushed by US (indeed, it effectively organized the first one), and in both cases US was the one that targeted cannabis specifically. In the Single Convention, US was the one that demanded it to be placed on the most restrictive Schedule available.
Here's a good read about all this: https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-rise-and-decline-of-c...
Didn't the US start targeting cannabis in the 1930's so the Alcohol Prohibition workers could keep their jobs by doing something else?
It actually started targeting it domestically on state level in 1920s, because of association with low-wage Mexican immigrants. Late 30s is when it went into high gear, with high-profile federal investigations and reports (including Anslinger's famous "marijuana smoking by white
women makes them want to seek sexual relations
with Negroes"), and bans on state level pretty much country wide.
There is a claim by a former member of the Nixon administration that drug laws where used to target blacks and hippies to disrupt anti-war protests etc.
The same administration that pushed hard to get Cannabis classified as schedule 1 in the UN convention on drugs, as claimed by Canadian archive documents.
The same administration that pushed hard to get Cannabis classified as schedule 1 in the UN convention on drugs, as claimed by Canadian archive documents.
Cannabis was banned throughout the world, because American corporations wanted it banned, and after the US put it on the Schedule I list, efforts were made far and wide for the rest of the world to follow suit.
And yes, cannabis was banned because of who was using it - as well as how USEFUL it was in disrupting other industries (such as paper) - not because of its effects. There are countless documentaries which discuss this - a simple Youtube search will yield results.
And yes, cannabis was banned because of who was using it - as well as how USEFUL it was in disrupting other industries (such as paper) - not because of its effects. There are countless documentaries which discuss this - a simple Youtube search will yield results.
Agreed that the US govt (read companies) put pressure on the govts. of other countries to get it banned.
I share your skepticism, generally. But I think other countries face sanctions if their local laws disagree with our drug laws, no? This would explain a lot of the agreement.
Under Napoleon in France, marijuana was banned because it reduced the soldiers' initiative to fight. Alcohol use was tolerated.
>Under Napoleon in France, marijuana was banned because it reduced the soldiers' initiative to fight.
Not really-really.
https://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/the-real-his...
Not really-really.
https://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/the-real-his...
Because Harry Jacob Anslinger wouldn't have anything to do once alcohol was legalized, so he started a campaign against marijuana[1].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger#The_campaig...
Yeah, used for rituals etc. I think most of the world too. It's also used in medicines. Ayurveda has always used it. And of course, modern medicine uses its contents.
But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.
But I wonder what made weed illegal in most countries? I assume it happened not so long ago. Perhaps a century.
I can't speak to most countries, but the United States did so largely due to concerted efforts to tar it as a drug of "negroes" and "Mexicans" and to attach to it mostly-untrue stories. "Reefer Madness" is an awful movie, but it's an awful movie that exists to push a policy position.
Understood. Here's a little overview of what happened in India: https://www.quora.com/When-and-why-was-marijuana-made-illega...
> I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal
I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?
I wonder too, but I believe not. Apparently cannabis has been used here and there at various point in history, but I didn't find mentions of widespread use or a pothead culture. It's surprising given how easy it is to grow and consume this plant. Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?
> Maybe people at the time had other prerogatives or they had more fun with opium and alcohol?
Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound.
I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)
Haha who knows. I guess a global cultural/and social change probably made people less "responsible". So this mandated a ban? Doesn't look so sound.
I guess there are some issues which most people don't wanna touch on. The constant demonisation made it a taboo. If some people feel there's some vested interest behind it, we don't have solid proof. But feelings/intuition doesn't need such proofs ;)
Who is having an agenda here?
I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.
The negative health affects are definitely there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yewlM8CtbQU
But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.
But that does not mean that we should not legalize it. I would even argue they are THE reason why we should legalize. A legal market is a regulated market, which lets you minimize the negative health effects by controlling what is actually being sold.
I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.
Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.
Too much water will kill you eventually. Funnily enough, we know how much water it takes to kill you, but we haven't discovered that limit on cannabis yet... but there surely is one.
In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.
In any case, the question isn't so much how it affects you while it's active, but how it affects you long-term. Transitory effects of any nature are not a concern, unless we're talking about rage fits or other behavioral changes that are actively and directly harmful to others.
The research is at its very basic level now. There are many different types with different affects. Studies that generalize all strains are inheritly flawed.
It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths
It will take awhile for accurate research to produce hard truths
Well, at my high school, the "stoners" were also drinking, sniffing glue, eating nutmeg, smoking banana peels, etc. In adult life, the few people I've met who only smoke weed have been pretty level-headed. There's some selection bias because I try to avoid people who appear to be of the glue-sniffing variety. Maybe they're just big reefer junkies after all.
I wouldn't call adults who casually smoke weed stoners though. We're talking about people who are long-term or chain smokers. High school pot smokers do not yet show the long-term signs of marijuana use typically.
Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes.
Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.
Here is an interesting thought about legalization.
In Kansas where they produce more wheat than anywhere in the world, what do you think would happen if Marijuana became to legal to grow here? Farmers struggling to survive on bushel pricing of wheat would move all their land to Pot because of the money. Wheat availability would crash through the floor.
A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high.
In Kansas where they produce more wheat than anywhere in the world, what do you think would happen if Marijuana became to legal to grow here? Farmers struggling to survive on bushel pricing of wheat would move all their land to Pot because of the money. Wheat availability would crash through the floor.
A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high.
You do know there are other countries that can produce wheat, a lot more wheat than Kansas, for instance Argentina (currently produces twice as much wheat as Kansas and that's after they went way down because they switched to soybeans) or my own country Uruguay.
If there was scarcity of wheat, be assured we'd cover it.
BTW, we can cover scarcity of pot as well :) (it's legal here)
If there was scarcity of wheat, be assured we'd cover it.
BTW, we can cover scarcity of pot as well :) (it's legal here)
> A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high.
Lol. “High.” However seriously if wheat prices rose, more farmers would grow wheat and prices would return to equilibrium — people being paid subsidies to grow nothing would suddenly find it profitable to grow wheat. Supply and demand works. The real problem is that farming is so heavily subsidized that actual supply and demand doesn’t always result in correct prices.
Lol. “High.” However seriously if wheat prices rose, more farmers would grow wheat and prices would return to equilibrium — people being paid subsidies to grow nothing would suddenly find it profitable to grow wheat. Supply and demand works. The real problem is that farming is so heavily subsidized that actual supply and demand doesn’t always result in correct prices.
Presumably some more natural price equilibrium would be established.
In other words: "New York Times, an establishment newspaper, lays down the initial arguments that will eventually lead to marijuana farming being dominated by large corporations."
A predictable power play, born from creating a whole new legal regime instead of simply just scrapping the unjust laws. The marijuana legalese-ization movement lost its legitimacy the minute it started kowtowing to corruption with that whole "tax it" refrain.
Are you suggesting that cannabis should be tax-free? What kind of corruption has emerged as a result of taxation on cannabis?
If marijuana were to be taxed at the rate of say lettuce with accounting handled by the same enforcement mechanisms, then the argument could be made that it was merely being subject to the same imperfect system we use to fund all public projects. But instead, we get the corruption I referred to - the creation of an entirely new administrative and enforcement apparatus which becomes its own justification. The dynamic still ultimately involves the power of the state telling individuals how they can and cannot aeffect their selves, with the only change being that the state is now profiting from selling indulgences.
I expect that if the proposition put to vote was simply to removing any existing laws around marijuana growing, sale, and possession, there's no way in hell it would have passed.
We all think of CA as this true-blue state, a bastion of progressive thought. But once you get out of the SF bay area and LA, you see a lot of red.
MJ isn't lettuce. It's a drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are drugs (yes, I know they have different effects and safety factors; that's irrelevant). It would seem unsurprising that it would be regulated in similar ways.
If your position is that tobacco, alcohol, etc. shouldn't be regulated at all, then ok, that's a fair position to have, but it's an entirely unrealistic one to expect the populace of any state in the US to get behind.
We all think of CA as this true-blue state, a bastion of progressive thought. But once you get out of the SF bay area and LA, you see a lot of red.
MJ isn't lettuce. It's a drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are drugs (yes, I know they have different effects and safety factors; that's irrelevant). It would seem unsurprising that it would be regulated in similar ways.
If your position is that tobacco, alcohol, etc. shouldn't be regulated at all, then ok, that's a fair position to have, but it's an entirely unrealistic one to expect the populace of any state in the US to get behind.
I don't think the legalize movement as a whole was working from a position that any input from the state into someone's life is immoral. That's a perfectly fine position to have but it's not like they were being hypocritical as a movement.
Similar to other "sin" taxes. Lettuce is not taxed at all in California but the fork to eat it is at over 10% in some locations. Using taxes to control behavior is seen as wrong by some, but they are not likely to be in political office.
Well said! Differential taxation based on some social or moral argument, to me, is a violation of liberty. The government ought not be in the business of using taxes to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do. Government shouldn’t be dictating winners and losers — that should be up to the individual. Every product ought to be taxed identically.
In order to make this argument coherent, you'd need to oppose as well a whole lot of additional commercial regulation, such as the kind forbidding the sale of food unfit for human consumption, fake medicine, cars that explode in fender benders, &c. If the people through their government can elect to forbid the sale of products altogether, surely it's less a breach of liberty for them to elect instead to add a surcharge to account for the externalities of those goods.
I think the problem is rather that with the need for taxation you also have to introduce mechanisms to check if taxation actually happens properly and with that comes a whole rat tail of bureaucracy and regulation complicating the process for everybody.
In theory, exemptions can be made, like only taxing people who grow for commercial use while not taxing people who grow for their private use. But such a system is prone to abuse and thus needs lots of control and enforcement.
In theory, exemptions can be made, like only taxing people who grow for commercial use while not taxing people who grow for their private use. But such a system is prone to abuse and thus needs lots of control and enforcement.
I think with legalization should come some kind of harsh regime for these pirates. Ruining public lands should be a serious felony.