
Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here, If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board - zonotope
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/us/california-marijuana-growers.html
======
the_evacuator
Article doesn't really highlight the environmental hooliganism practiced by
these guys. They rip up a meadow in a national forest, or on BLM land, and
they irrigate like crazy people, eroding everything rapidly, and they drive up
and down the mountainside in their giant pickups. When they are done they
leave everything including their trash and their toilets. When ordinary people
go motorcycling in these public lands the growers chase them, shoot at them,
and set booby traps. The whole thing is a public menace.

I think with legalization should come some kind of harsh regime for these
pirates. Ruining public lands should be a serious felony.

~~~
bigzen
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.

~~~
Theodores
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.

~~~
the_evacuator
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.

------
gozur88
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.

~~~
sputr
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.

~~~
mgbmtl
> "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).

~~~
sputr
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...](http://globalnews.ca/news/3606927/after-blowing-
july-1-deadline-canada-seems-likely-to-legalize-pot-while-ignoring-un-
treaties/)

~~~
mgbmtl
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.

~~~
GFischer
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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/americas/uruguay-marijuana-us-
banks.html?mcubz=0)

------
KingMachiavelli
> 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.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Just look at how alcohol is taxed. This is a solved problem.

------
stephengillie
> _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?

------
dogruck
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?

~~~
rangibaby
_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.

~~~
dogruck
You failed to change my opinion.

~~~
pizza
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]

------
neoecos
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.

------
tsomctl
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.

------
knowThySelfx
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.

~~~
eropple
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.

~~~
yodsanklai
> 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.

~~~
int_19h
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/International_Opium_Convention)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs)

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...](https://www.tni.org/en/publication/the-rise-and-
decline-of-cannabis-prohibition)

~~~
vorg
Didn't the US start targeting cannabis in the 1930's so the Alcohol
Prohibition workers could keep their jobs by doing something else?

~~~
int_19h
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.

------
Animats
A friend of mine runs a farm bureau office in a rural Northern California
county. She has to deal with pot growers, who need some of the same services
regular farmers do. Not fun.

~~~
ikeyany
You'd think it's because it's illegal that it attracts 'seedy' people.

But if it weren't so taboo?

------
X86BSD
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.

~~~
GFischer
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)

------
gumboshoes
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."

------
mindslight
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.

~~~
i_am_nomad
Are you suggesting that cannabis should be tax-free? What kind of corruption
has emerged as a result of taxation on cannabis?

~~~
mindslight
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.

~~~
briandear
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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

