Marijuana is county's No. 2 'crop' [Tulare County, CA]

Visalia Times-Delta ^ | Thursday, October 30, 2003 | Percy Ednalino

[headsonpikes]

Man, that must be some ditch-weed in California.

The GOOBS claim in this release that pot plants are worth $4000 each, on average. I know chaps who grow this stuff in B.C., and they tell me that a half-pound of good bud per plant is the norm.

The GOOBS wouldn't be exaggerating, I s'pose!

[coloradan]

Please cite examples of people stumbling on bomb-making operations and being killed for what they have seen. Thanks.

[robertpaulsen]

If marijuana were legal, less would be grown?

[Cultural Jihad]

... which would reduce the number grown, because it wouldn't be so valuable anymore. In other words, the War On (some) Drugs fails in its mission.

I have to wonder about this statement. Here in California it is quasi-legal, and yet the prices being paid are as high as or higher than anywhere else in the counrty. The law of supply and demand determines price, and if one dealer wants to charge a premium for his 'bail money fund' then there's another dealer around the corner willing to undercut him.

The Netherlands is another example. The prices there are comparable to the prices anywhere else.

As the old adage goes, something is worth only what another person is willing to pay for it.

[coloradan]

Maybe, maybe not. Even if the same amount were grown, less would be grown in large farms, and more by individuals for their own use, which would remove some of the market for it. As it is, people would rather risk getting busted once during a purchase, than during the entire time they have plants growing at home, hence the demand for others to take the long-term risk of growing.

As for demand, I'm sure there are people out who do it only because it's illegal, and that temptation would end if it were decriminalized. On the other hand, there might be people who don't do it only because it's illegal. So net demand might go up or down. But if anything, use today is higher than in the 20s or 30s, when it was first criminalized, AFAIK. So long term use might well stabilize at lower fraction of the population than today's level.

[Cultural Jihad]

(I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this article doesn't contain the usual subliminal leftist propaganda, e.g. "Busting pot gardens ruins the county's economy", and "If we just legalized pot the profit motive would be gone so the woods would be safe again", and "The growers would all become upstanding citizens if it weren't for the evil pot laws", and... etc...

The Libertarian advocates do seem to advance the George Soros socialist model of so-called "harm reduction." Furthermore, they also tend to make generous use of the famous liberal cop-out which whines how everything is all society's fault, as if criminals are goaded into doing what they do because of the policies in place. An example of this is the "anal rape camps" reference, as if the presence of laws against drug trafficking somehow forces men to rape others in prison. As with liberals, they all want to minimize and shirk personal responsibility and place the blame upon society for the bad behaviors of others.

"Laws against dope force men to grow it on other people's property, and force them to use guns to protect their crops!" as if they are not in any way culpable or in possession of any freewill. Laws just make them into zombies, apparently. ;-)

[Cultural Jihad]

We'll have to wait awhile before we see the Constitution even mentioned by the drug-legalization advocates. They prefer to advance moral-liberal notions and social-Darwinist arguments instead, wherein the value of human life is so degraded so as to be incapable of or unworthy of self-governance.

The only way that the Constitution can be made to conform with their ideology is if there were a Constitutional Admendment which prohibited all states and all counties from prohibiting any recreational drug for any man, woman, or child ever.

[coloradan]

An example of this is the "anal rape camps" reference, as if the presence of laws against drug trafficking somehow forces men to rape others in prison.

That is, of course, a severe distortion of the actual argument.

Incidentally, you yourself pointed out that crossing the border is a misdemeanor, while holding people at gunpoint is a felony. Well, some drug crimes are misdemeanors, while forcible rape is a felony - and the authorities send the misdemeanants to jail with a reasonable expectation of what awaits them.

[Cultural Jihad]

Supposedly the Federal government somehow forced the knuckle-draggers near the border to assault the women and children on the public street. Uh-huh. It's all society's fault that people act badly. Uh-huh.

[robertpaulsen]

There are two factors at work here -- price and legalization, both inter-related.

Cutting the price of marijuana by 90% would, by itself, increase use. Probably double, or close to it.

Legalizing marijuana would, by itself, increase use, especially among teens. Probably double, or close to it.

IMO, we're looking at a quadrupling of use, maybe more.

In 1979 marijuana was neither legal nor cheap. Yet marijuana use was 3X today's rate. So, just a change in attitude could triple the use.

The second thing to consider is teen use. Marijuana is easier for teens to obtain than alcohol, yet teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why? IMO, because alcohol is legal -- society has given it's collective OK for adult use. How bad can it be?

[coloradan]

Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.

But the federal government does force non-violent people into jail, where there is a well-known, high likelihood, of them getting violently raped. That policy, and those who support it, are disgusting, especially when one considers how slowly the authorities are at so much as lifting a finger to stop prison rape. One would almost think that some people, including some in government, want non-violent offenders to be anally raped. Are you one of these people?

[tubebender]

I would have thought that Humboldt County would have been right up there near the top.

Did I hear you call my name...Humboldt County was 12th but remember this represents seizures. Most Humboldt Homegrown has gone underground and now they grow 3 crops a year with grow lights run by huge generators. The courts have blocked the use of heat sensing flyovers to uncover these "Grows"...

[coloradan]

I don't agree with your predictions. It was my experience in school that essentially every person who wanted to try it, did so. So expecting a fourfold increase is not reasonable.

Second - suppose you are right and use did go up fourfold. What would be consequence of that? Teens get killed in drunk driving accidents a lot more frequently than in pot-related incidents (that is, where pot is a primary or contributing factor, as opposed to merely being present). So I don't accept the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it scenario that you are presenting either. For all you know, some teens might stay away from alcohol, and not get killed in crashes.

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[jmc813]

The only way that the Constitution can be made to conform with their ideology is if there were a Constitutional Admendment which prohibited all states and all counties from prohibiting any recreational drug for any man, woman, or child ever.

Conservatives such as Jim Robinson and myself would simply like to see drug laws be determined at the atate level.

[ellery]

Wrong. I want the federal government simply to adhere to the Constitution by ceasing to interfere with individual state policies on drugs (and on all other matters not granted to the federal government). That means if a state's residents want to impose harsh penalties for drug use, they can do so. If a state's residents want to legalize, they can do so. This is consistent with the Constitution's amendment 10.

In other words, I don't believe there is a Constitutional right to do drugs. There is a Constitutional right for state citizens to decide these questions for themselves.

Do you believe that federal interference in intrastate drug matters is Constitutional?

[A CA Guy]

Another issue, the border has convoluted laws stopping proper border enforcement from what I understand.

They also have other work I am sure along with probable participation in Dare.

[patriciaruth]

And you know the names of those killed after stumbling into marijuana patches? I thought drug use was a "victimless crime."

[patriciaruth]

Fox Glove is a gift from God. You could munch a bunch of that if you want.

[patriciaruth]

I don't believe Thomas Paine believed vice was a natural right of man. He was also very pro-federalist, and against people identifying with their States in preference to identifying with the United States of America.