Medical pot growers ravage California forest habitat

The Sacramento Bee ^ | October 21, 2012 | By Matt Weiser

[Oldeconomybuyer]

California's annual medical marijuana harvest is just about done, but this year brings a new revelation sweeping the nascent industry: The feel-good herb may not, in fact, be so good for the environment.

From golden Sierra foothills to forested coastal mountains, an explosion of pseudo-legal medical marijuana farms has dramatically changed the state's landscape over the past two years.

A rush to profit from patient demand for pot has resulted in irresponsible forest clearing, illegal stream diversions, and careless pesticide and fertilizer use that has polluted waterways and killed wildlife, state and local government officials said.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I suppose with actual legalization would come quotas and taxes and various regulations and record keeping.
Growing in a national forest avoids all those problems for the grower that doesn't want the oversight that might cut into profits.
Legalization might work like tobacco growing.

If you are talking about legalization like alcohol or tobacco, you are talking about partial legalization. Then, what you say about tax, oversight, and possibly the black market could be true, depending on how onerous the government regulations and taxes were.

On the other hand, you can brew your own beer and make adequate amounts of wine for your own consumption without tax or interference. I don't know if anyone cares if you grow and cure your own tobacco without resale, or if the personal product is palatable.

With pot, growing enough for satisfactory personal consumption is said to be easy; and the quality is probably good enough, unlike the homebrew beer I used to make. That would make many of the regulation problems you describe less onerous, and would make the appeal of black market growing drop markedly.

[Ken H]

So do you personally support a state’s authority to regulate intrastate mj under the Tenth Amendment, or do you support fedgov authority under the Commerce Clause to overrule them?

[count-your-change]

Assertions don’t count, court rulings do. So if you want to change those rulings just put on your Big Girls Boots and have it.

[HereInTheHeartland]

“They have their own private “armies” and terrorize the local residents. They not only divert rivers, but also steal water from the legitimate farmers. Those farmers are still charged for the water usage.”

Just wow. The CA National Guard should be able to clean this garbage up quickly.

[MamaTexan]

Assertions don’t count, court rulings do.

That's right,and in a previous post, I gave a US Supreme Court ruling by Chief Justice Marshall that states the regulation of commerce was commerce with the State....which means it has NOTHING to do with commerce among the people.

Oh, that's right, you totally ignored it.

-----

So if you want to change those rulings just put on your Big Girls Boots and have it.

LOL! Why should I bother? Unconstitutional acts have NO FORCE in law.

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, not merely from the date of the decision branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177, late 2d, Sec 256.

--------

Perhaps you should change your screen-name to count-your-sheep, as you, sir positively REEK of the ovine persuasion.

[count-your-change]

Small amounts of pot or alcohol for personal use is not the production of any importance and if it remained at that I suppose few agencies would devote much time and resources to stopping it. But...

the guy that is growing hundreds of plants is in it for profit like the moonshiners. And like the shiners taxes and regulation means less profit so hide it in the woods.

So large of amounts of pot will either be outlawed or regulated heavily like alcohol or not at all. I don’t see the latter happening any time soon.

[count-your-change]

“Oh, that's right, you totally ignored it”

Go to court because some DEA agent found a bale of weed in your trunk and try that argument out on the judge. You don't need a lawyer, just explain that the fed law is unconstitutional and Marshall said so. Be sure and explain too that “Unconstitutional acts have NO FORCE in law.”

Of course I ignored it. But who knows? Maybe all the drug convictions under fed law will be overturned and the prisoners set free because Marshall said so.

Didn't the Raich decision uphold the CC in the case of pot in Cal.?

[MamaTexan]

Didn't the Raich decision uphold the CC in the case of pot in Cal.?

Yes, they did.

The US Supreme Court also 'found' in Wickard v. Filburn that a man couldn't grow his own wheat on his own land for his and his own family's consumption.

Do you agree with that too?

[Leonard210]

“I’ve better things to do than reply to more petty insults.”

It appears not.

[count-your-change]

Too bad the poor wheat grower didn't have you to argue his case in court. Anyway, I don't equate wheat growing with pot production.

I take it you don't have much confidence that your opinion or quotation of Marshall would prove to be an effective defense in a drug court. Neither do I when I hear the latest decision on pot and the CC.

You can make all the comments about me you wish here but when it comes down to whether you're willing to put your arguments to a real test, a law court, then suddenly it becomes...what? theoretical? Hot air? the courage of your convictions? what? Just blow?

“Count your sheep” huh?

[count-your-change]

On the whole, without being terribly specific, what commerce takes place entirely within a state would be better left to the state to regulate and control.

The argument for it would include a more local control but the argument against is how to keep a business within the state. Who would be able to do that and how.

But whatever my personal views we're still bound by the law as it exists.

[Ken H]

In your opinion, was Justice Thomas correct in his Raich dissent regarding the Commerce Clause... yes or no?

[count-your-change]

see #60

[Ken H]

Since you agree with Justice Thomas on the Commerce Clause, you must also believe that intrastate regulation of marijuana should fall to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

Simple question. Do you believe intrastate regulation of mj should fall to the states under the Tenth Amendment... YES or NO?

[count-your-change]

see #71

[wardaddy]

Oh bullshit

The only growers harming the hillsides are the Mex bandit growers

The legit growers mostly hothouse on leased or owned land

Seen it with my own eyes many times

Bandit growers have no scripts

[Ken H]

Is that a YES or a NO to my question in #74?

[MamaTexan]

Too bad the poor wheat grower didn't have you to argue his case in court. Anyway, I don't equate wheat growing with pot production.

You're dodging again. Please answer the question.

Do you agree with the finding in Wickard or not?

[count-your-change]

Question asked and answered already.

[MamaTexan]

Question asked and answered already.

ROFLMAO!

No, you provided no 'answer', merely prevarication.

In response to the question - Do you agree with the finding in Wickard, your response was:

I don't equate wheat growing with pot production.

-------

You were not asked whether you 'equated' wheat with pot.

But if you cannot assimilate and respond to a simple question, it would certainly explain why understanding the Original Intent of the Law is beyond your capability.