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."

Comments

Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[ZigiSamblak]

Here in the Netherlands we're only allowed to have four plants in natural light and farming cannabis on an industrial scale is only permitted in some rare government experiments.

Didn't think we would start running behind on the Americans with our liberal drugs laws, then again the Christian democrats have been in government for quite a while.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[bm_luethke]

If I could go back and tell our founding fathers just one thing I think it would be "the commerce clause sucks royally". It seems to me that the vast majority of the really bad Supreme Court decisions are based on it - it seems that one can rationalize it to allow the feds to regulate nearly *anything*.

Simply look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause, search for the "civil rights" header and read from there. They can regulate health clubs because the health bars they sell are manufactured in other states? Really? Does *anyone* in their right mind truly think this is what was intended? Or the one you quote - anyone out there really think that the framers of our constitution meant for federal govt to regulate what you can and can not make/grow at your house because if you do that then you will not purchase the item on the open market and that effects national supply and demand? That is simply *crazy* (I agree with the part of that decision that says the states can't legalize something the feds have the power to make illegal).

In the one you link I can somewhat understand Scalia's stance - that allowing states to have people grow restricted items undercuts the federal's ability to regulate something (which is true - it's why California did what it did). While I think that is borderline, allowing you to produce illicit drugs interferes with the feds ability to enforce is quite a bit different than saying growing it in your house lowers the price so the feds can regulate it - my main argument there is that falls under the sovereignty clause, not commerce.

But then I'm that wants the feds to only do what the constitution allows them to do, I prefer most power to be local anyway. There is too much difference both in terms of what people want and what people need from California to Tennessee that moving most regulatory power to a federal level just plain sucks. If you want to move into a hippie, free love, abortion on demand commune then have at it - if you want to move into a religious, gun toting, redneck village then have fun. I see no reason for either one to tell the other they are doing it wrong and try and force them into their lifestyle. But then I seem to be rare in that regards too - most want you to have the freedom to do exactly what they force you too. If we were simply arguing where to draw the line (and there is a great deal of argument there) then it would be one thing, but we are mainly arguing who gets to tell the rest of the people what to do.

Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists

[countertrolling]

There's anecdotal evidence that pot smokers consume less alcohol when toking up. AND, from the government itself...

So I'm just tellin' ya, Let it go... It's over Johnny, it's over...

Re:lol

[countertrolling]

Beer still takes a lot of work and equipment... Weed is virtually the only drug that requires no infrastructure. The markets for alcohol and other drugs will diminish significantly. Those industries will not be happy about this. That would include the law enforcement and prison industries.. Good-bye huge budgets for those guys...

Re:That didn't take long

[PopeRatzo]

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs

I don't know about where you live, but around here drugs are pretty readily available, yet "everyone" does not do drugs.

A. Be 25
B. Pass a several year course of drug education, from health issues to manufacture.
C. Obtain a license from your state
D. Restrict use to private places
E. Don't drive while doing it, or around the time you're doing it

There are people who believe the same rules should not apply to firearms, which are designed and manufactured to be lethal, yet should apply to marijuana, which as far as I know has only been lethal to extra-large bags of LAY'S® Kettle Cooked Harvest Ranch Flavored Potato Chips.

Re:That didn't take long

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Is it possible that in 2010, there's a sign that our society might actually be growing up a little bit?

No, its just the economic downturn's effect on tax revenues is all. One of the major reasons prohibition finally came to an end too - in the decade or so prior to prohibition roughly 40% of the country's tax revenues were from the sale of alcohol.

Ever wonder why it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the feds can ban any old drug they feel like without even a vote of the legislative branch nowadays?

That's some bullshit right there.

Re:That didn't take long

[TexVex]

I've been a smoker of cigarettes and herb since my late teens. The weed I can take or leave. I've gone through times when I would wake-and-bake and stay high all day for months on end, times when I would get high once or twice a month, and times when I haven't smoked any at all for years on end.

While it is true that you build up a bit of a tolerance after you've been smoking hard and long, there are absolutely no withdrawal symptoms when you stop. Even when you go from being constantly stoned to completely dry, you can quit and not have cravings.

Tobacco is completely the opposite. If I go more than a few hours without a smoke, I'm already hating life. I have quit three times, all of them for several months, but the craving for the nicotine rush just never seemed to go away. It really does suck.

Nicotine is highly toxic, and just a small drop of the pure stuff on the tongue can easily be fatal. With THC, however, you can consume an entire gram of the pure shit and you'll just get really, REALLY stoned. (That's hard to do by smoking, but not so hard to do if you're eating it...)

I remember a very vivid dream from my youth, in which I went into a gas station and bought a pack of Marlboro joints. They looked like cigarettes, and even had filters, and the box looked like a pack of Marlboro 100s except in deep green instead of red.

I think it's time we quit being stupid about the whole thing and flat-out make MJ be equally as legal and equally as commoditized as tobacco. But I'm happy for the baby steps. If it has to be "medicine" for "sick people" then so be it; eventually it'll be legal and commercialized. I guess when it comes right down to it we are ALL terminally ill and in chronic pain. It's just some of us are more immediately terminal and in more pain than others. But we all have pain and we are all gonna die.

Re:How long will that last?

[catmistake]

I think you're probably correct in that this is how the federal government is trying to justify their authority. I believe, however, that they will fail.

Cannibis was demonized in the 20th Century by racists. Once it is exposed that the plant is no threat to civilized society, that it is a wealth of medicene, and a ton of other really great uses, and that most citizens that are sick that cannibis can help want it, then the court will be swayed and the law will change.

No anti-drug attorney anywhere could convince any court that the Founders would have wanted cannibis to be illegal. Every important document from the era of the Founders was drafted on hemp paper. They all wore hemp clothes and used hemp rope. And most of the Founders smoked pot, for entertainment purposes or for various ailments. George Washington was obsessed with his pot crop.

Marijuana is not like cocaine. It's not like heroin, or even legal drugs that are abused like oxycontin. The Federal law banning marijuana makes about as much sense as banning coffee. It may be abused, but it's abuse won't be any more detrimental to society than other abused drugs. In fact, it will likely be less detrimental than alcohol, and that's already legal. But this negative effect must be weighed against the positive effect, which is tremendous. Marijuana curbs suffering. The DEA's own administrative law judge did not see why marijuana should be illegal. He ruled it should be a scheduled drug, and with expert testimony, wished to place it at schedule IV, rather than schedule I where it is now. The DEA overuled their own judge. The DEA won't be able to overrule the Supreme Court.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[afidel]

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Re:Oakland needs to mellow out

[Toonol]

Yeah, I'm a strong supporter of legalizing marijuana (and most other drugs), 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.

There are legitimate medical reasons to take marijuana; but I'd say at LEAST 90% of those signed up for it are lying through their teeth. Honestly, I think it's closer to 99%.

And as far as non-narcotic uses of hemp; it's a useful plant, but it's wonderful properties tend to be exaggerated by pro-pot boosters.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!

[RobertM1968]

Don't worry, no company will touch this and no financial institution will fund it. This whole idea has DEA bust written all over it. California can do whatever they want to legalize it but so long as it's illegal under federal statute large scale grow operations will be way too hot to touch. The interesting thing would be if the state were to grow it themselves, would pit states rights against federal drug laws.

Wrong! The tobacco industry is geared up, ready and waiting - including having trademarked various sale names for such products. Google "tobacco companies marijuana" if you dont believe me.

As for the Feds, how long do you think it will be that they hold out? Guarantee you they still have the methods in place to tax this, regardless of the current legality. Money will win out in this.