Slashdot Mirror


Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland

Trintech writes "According to MSNBC: 'The city of Oakland, California on Tuesday legalized large-scale marijuana cultivation for medical use and will issue up to four permits for "industrial" cultivation starting next year. The move by the San Francisco Bay Area city aims to bring medical marijuana cultivation into the open and allow the city to profit by taxing those who grow it. The resolution passed the city council easily after a nearly four-hour debate that pitted small-scale "garden" growers against advocates of a bigger, industrial system that would become a "Silicon Valley" of pot.' Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

22 of 690 comments (clear)

  1. How long will that last? by Korin43 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?

    1. Re:How long will that last? by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Both California and the Federal Gov are hurting for a source or revenue. Taxation will only get so far based on the Laffer curve. I honestly think we are at the cusp of legalizing pot across the board, only be taxed heavily in the process. Which of course is why they would do it in the first place.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:How long will that last? by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.

      No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.

      That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.

      Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.

    3. Re:How long will that last? by emt377 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal.

      A lot of people get belligerent and violent when drunk. I'd rather have them stoned. For the rest of us normal people, I don't know why the government would or even should care if I have a drink or a couple of puffs of pot. They should just mind their own business and go find something useful to occupy themselves with. To be frank I think the illicit market for dealing in contraband is far more detrimental than the contraband itself - at least for things like booze and pot. People get killed in turf wars to control the illicit trade and to show off their third-world peasant machismo, not from smoking pot.

  2. That didn't take long by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit? It's something small, but a good sign. I'm not a pot smoker, but the notion that there's been this prohibition on a harmless plant with medicinal and recreational uses is ridiculous. There are only a few things worse than a moralistic, hypocritical society. Saying that marijuana is evil, dangerous and should be illegal while tobacco and alcohol are huge industries with all the social and health problems they create is both moralistic and hypocritical. Worse, it's a hypocrisy fueled by the fact that so much money is involved - money that pays lobbyists who buy politicians.

    There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate over the illegality of crystal meth, cocaine, and some other substances. These are drugs that have had ruinous effects on parts of our society. But the debate over marijuana should have been over 50 years ago.

    Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics. Making their sale on the street illegal is one thing, but the fact that doctors are afraid to prescribe them, even in cases where they would be the best treatment for their patients is a shame. We've got this weird proscription against substances that could make us feel better, even for sick or terminal patients, that comes from a moralistic, Puritan streak that runs through this country. It's time to jettison that relic.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:That didn't take long by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

      Some of our founding fathers thought that was sufficient.

    2. Re:That didn't take long by dasunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We should be honest about this. Legalized pot will result in more people using, more people abusing, and all the problems that implies.

      I'm not too sure about that.

      Considering the availability of alcohol, I'd imagine that the choice of drug to abuse might shift, but the total amount of abusers may stay more or less constant.

      The health effects of alcohol seem worse than marijuana, so it may be a net plus to society.

    3. Re:That didn't take long by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The right to keep and bear arms is in the Constitution, the right to get drunk or high is not.

      The constitution is a document which describes what the federal government is permitted to do - everything else is forbidden to the federal government.

      If the only rights permitted to the people were those enumerated in the bill of rights, we would have practically no rights at all.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:That didn't take long by stonewallred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as a question, why is it any business of the government what chemicals an adult consumes? There are plenty of heroin users in the UK who have been using heroin and going to work each day and living a nice life. Most of the horror stories with the various drugs are related to the fact the drugs are illegal and cost a great deal of money which leads the users to do all kinds of things to get their fix. If joe crackhead could buy his rock like willie the wino buys his beer, at the same approximate price per high, there would be few horror stories, just as winos don't need to turn tricks and rob people, neither would drug addicts.

  3. When will businesses relax their testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for legalizing pot, and I have zero issues with people who smoke marijuana. But with more and more legalization becoming a reality, I'm starting to wonder when places that do drug tests on employees will start to lighten up and quit testing for marijuana. I like to smoke now and again, but don't do it regularly because I don't want to fail a random test, and have laid off completely for weeks to get a job. I'm not a hardcore smoke so this isn't a huge deal to me, but it'd be nice to know I could be somewhere and toke legally AND definitely keep my job.

    1. Re:When will businesses relax their testing? by icebraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it completely abusive requiring drug tests for any jobs, except maybe if your job requires driving or heavy machine handling. Otherwise, what the hell as my company to do with what I do in my free time? Sure, drugs can affect my performance, but in that case they can fire me for not producing what I should; does it matter to know why?

      Here in Portugal some companies are starting to do the same, and there was a politician that wrote an opinion piece where he said "surely no one is against this measure". What the hell? I'm against it! And so should be any person who values privacy. If I'm not putting others' safety at risk, stay the hell away from my blood.

  4. Corporate take over of pot farming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What this really concerns is big business shutting out small scale farmers. Only four farms are being allowed essentially shutting out small growers. That didn't take long. It's sad because small family farms could actually make a profit growing pot but there's simply too much profit involved to allow small farmers to be allowed to play. I wonder how much lobbying went into this decision?

  5. Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the US, as an individual, you have to get a "prescription" for it from your "doctor".

    FTFY.

  6. Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The ONLY reason they're doing this is because they believe they can get ahead of the curve when California legalizes marijuana. They want the tax revenue and nothing more. This is not about freedom or fighting for what's right.

    Frankly the dominance of tax revenue in the discussion of legalization disgusts me.

    1. Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I would think rounding up all the drug dealers and taking all their money would raise the most money.

      Oh, yes. We could organize a federal agency to do that: call it the Drug Enforcement Administration...the dealers wouldn't have a chance against THEM.

      rj

    2. Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons by MadUndergrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So many bad things are done for good reasons... When a good thing is done for middling reasons I'll take it.

  7. Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it! by stonewallred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RAH had the idea. I am all for legalizing marijuana. Better a devil we can control and tax than the one which is fueling the cartels and violence in mexico and South America.

  8. Re:Oakland needs to mellow out by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp.

    I think this is a problem with the US Govt rather then the idea of medical marijuana growth. The tax for drugs should be on the sale of the drug itself not the cultivation. But the US Govt I think is not capable of differentiating between the marijuana plant and the use of marijuana as a narcotic.

    Which really is a shame as there are variants of the plant with a THC content so low you'd have to smoke a square hectare to get high.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  9. Re:Oakland needs to mellow out by TyFoN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fibres from the marijuana plant produce a material stronger then cotton at a much lower cost to produce (faster growth time, higher yield per plant, able to withstand harsher environmental conditions) thus you have to oft quoted stoner conspiracy that the anti-weed movement was sponsored by America's cotton growers.

    I haven't seen anyone refute this. I can imagine though that fighting the cotton growers would be about as successful as trying to kill the corn subsidies.

  10. Re:Oakland needs to mellow out by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can't grow good pot in a field of industrial hemp. Industrial hemp has a large percentage of males. The males pollinate the good pot and ruin it.
    Actually one of the easiest ways to get rid of pot is to grow lots of low potency industrial hemp. The pollen can blow hundreds of miles and ruin all the good stuff. The only way to grow the good stuff is in heavily filtered spaces.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  11. Re:Oakland needs to mellow out by Omestes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but I think the 'medical marijuana' movement is a farce. The net result is a bunch of stoner rejects inventing various chronic conditions in order to prove to the officials that they need marijuana to make their life tolerable. How embarrassing... how degrading.

    I think its a fairly savvy political move. For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana, and puritan like values are on the rise, so the odds of marijuana ever being legalized on its own merits is slim to none. A lot of the population is nebulously hostile to legalization for vague reasons, or completely apathetic. So the only real way to get the discussion started, and to start demystifying pot is to make it public, available, and outside of the purely hedonistic "some drugs are not evil" arena. Medical marijuana has done this very well.

    I really don't think many people actually buy the "needing marijuana to make life tolerable" part of medical marijuana, as much as they view it as a way to eventually for the feds to fix their point of view. Medical marijuana is a gateway drug to legalized marijuana.

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  12. Re:Oakland needs to mellow out by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Citation needed. Recent studies showing no decrease in practical reaction times recently came out.

    Irony, asking for citation whilst providing no citation yourself. Here's Wikipedia, another citation there.

    It's not exactly a secret that marijuana use results in a diminished reaction time and loss of motor control. This is the same with alcohol or most depressants for that matter. You can take a certain amount of alcohol or other drug and remain within the safe limits for reaction time (this amount depends on the individual) but with marijuana there tends to be less of a safe zone that exists with alcohol due to the rapid rate at which marijuana is consumed (1 bong can intoxicate an individual as much as 100 ml of hard liquor in one go, plus marijuana intoxication is much faster).

    I'm all in favour of decriminalisation and in some cases legalisation but we cant lie to ourselves here, marijuana is an intoxicant that has serious effects on motor skills and reactions.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.