Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Medicine

Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland 690

Posted by samzenpus
from the grow-em-if-you-got-em dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland

Comments Filter:
  • by Korin43 (881732) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:28PM (#32985142) Homepage
    Who seriously thinks this isn't going to end with FBI agents with flamethrowers and some farmers going to jail forever?
  • msnbc (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:33PM (#32985186)

    According to MSNBC:

    That's as far as I got...

  • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:34PM (#32985196) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:39PM (#32985234)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:42PM (#32985252)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:43PM (#32985258)
    In the US, as an individual, you have to get a "prescription" for it from your "doctor".

    FTFY.
  • by phantomcircuit (938963) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:44PM (#32985266) Homepage

    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.

  • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @08:56PM (#32985348) Homepage

    Well, if we actually had a legitimate understanding of the Commerce Clause, that wouldn't happen. But that would also necessitate that a lot of government regulations would go away.

  • by swb (14022) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:00PM (#32985382)

    Next up should be a re-thinking of the laws regarding pain medication, such as opiates and synthetics.

    Amen. I get terrible "migraines" (doctor's word, not mine -- I just say headaches) and about 20% of the time a timely Midrin will help, but if that fails or I'm not timely, the only thing that helps is opiates.

    My doctor gives me *40* Percocets every six months, along with a bullshit lecture on how habit-forming they are, etc etc etc. It's hardly adequate -- I fall short by about 1-2 months and refuse to go back for fear of being labeled and cut off forever or have him force shit like daily tricyclic antidepressants on me.

    At my last visit I complained mildly that while effective, the peak duration of pain relief was fairly short, forcing me to take more pills -- was there something with a longer, sustained release? "No, that'd be just more narcotics, and we'll stay where we're at." Meanwhile, a 3 day headache is like 1/4 of my SIX MONTH supply.

    I'm pretty sure I could take 40 Percocets in a MONTH and never develop an addiction, but they'd rather have you suffer than "risk" addiction.

  • by Internet_Communist (592634) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:06PM (#32985422) Homepage

    I don't know if you're serious or not, but that's completely ridiculous for pot quite honestly. and most studies on pot and driving actually showed that people were more cautious, it does not have the same type of coordination effects of alcohol regardless of what some people may tell you.

    quite honestly any restrictions on pot if it were made legal i'd expect to be equal or less than alcohol, since alcohol is a much more dangerous drug anyway.

    and you know what, people who abuse stimulants (adderall is pretty much one step away from crystal meth) are some of the worst addicts I've met, don't even talk about them in the same paragraph...pot is completely different. you don't burst out into abusive fits of rage when you smoke pot like I've seen people do while hopped up on meth...

    if you want people to hang around a real addict, they won't be pot smokers. Real addicts do a lot more than something as relatively harmless as pot.

  • by Deadstick (535032) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:08PM (#32985438)
    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

  • by MadUndergrad (950779) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:08PM (#32985440)

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

  • Re:Other impacts (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:14PM (#32985484)

    3 months from now? You're acting like large-scale pot cultivation in northern California just started with this bill.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:29PM (#32985578) Homepage Journal

    We all know that inhaling burning plant material creates by-products such as: tar, ash, CO2, carbon monoxide and other gases & carcinogenic elements, because so much time and money has been spent on proving this with tobacco. Nobody ever talks about the strain legalizing it would put on the health care system. Clearly it would contribute to some people getting cancer

    clearly what? [drugpolicy.org]

    and don't give me that bullshit you read on the inside of the Cypress Hill CD that there has never been a documented death from smoking marijuana.

    So you have a citation, then?

    I do realize that a casual marijuana smoker does smoke far less often than even a light cigarette smoker, but how many strait up potheads are there to the casual 1 gram or less a day smokers? 100 to 1?

    Logical fallacy: misdirection. This is irrelevant.

    Your guess is as good as mine, I just think if we are going to be realistic about this issue we should also be genuine with our intent to improve our quality of life.

    Which is why you've chosen to spread FUD when in fact people have talked and are talking about the potential impact on the health system and finding that it would be positive. There can only be one reason why you would ignore the health benefits in the context of a conversation which is supposedly about the impact (or in your words, "strain") that it might put on the health care system, and that is that you are pushing an anti-cannabis agenda.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:39PM (#32985652)

    No you didn't, prescriptions are federal and regulated by the DEA. Cannabis is Schedule-1 which means it has no known medical use and/or cannot be used safely under the supervision of a doctor. Doctors cannot write prescriptions for Cannabis any more than they can for LSD or heroin, no matter what state they practice in. In fact, if a doctor did write a prescription for Cannabis on their prescription form and the DEA found out they would lose their license to write any prescriptions at all. While license to practice is regulated by the state, it doesn't include license to write prescriptions. This is why many doctors are afraid to even recommend cannabis, even if permitted by the state they practice in, because they fear losing their license to write prescriptions which would end their practice.

    Only six people legally use Cannabis under federal law as the program [wikipedia.org]

    was closed to new people in 1992.

    I'm sorry but you simply had a recommendation from your doctor. A doctors note is not a prescription.

  • by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:44PM (#32985678)

    "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    Some of our founding fathers thought that was sufficient.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:50PM (#32985736) Homepage

    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.

  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:52PM (#32985746) Homepage

    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.

  • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @09:57PM (#32985786) Journal

    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.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:01PM (#32985808)

    These are drugs that have had ruinous effects on parts of our society

    This claim is bunk.

    The drugs have no effect. The addicts using them do.

    In my experience, the addicts have issues regardless of which drug they happen to be using. I've never seen an addict who was a normal contributing member of society before they became an addict.

    Take away every drug control law on the planet and the next year or two would result in a lot of deaths and accidents by morons that couldn't keep it together without the law to curb their habits.

    After that, we'd be right back to where we are now, sans the drug crimes.

    The people who have problems with drugs have problems on their own, the drug may make it obvious, but it doesn't create a problem from nothing.

  • by dasunt (249686) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:01PM (#32985812)

    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.

  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:22PM (#32985930)

    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.

  • by stonewallred (1465497) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:23PM (#32985938)
    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.
  • by emt377 (610337) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:26PM (#32985950)

    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.

  • Re:sheesh! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sparcrypt (1355601) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @10:40PM (#32986050)
    Of course you can get addicted to it. You can get addicted to anything. Maybe it has no chemical addiction but I've seen plenty of people who are addicted to pot and it screws them up just as much as alcoholism. Granted, I don't consider it any worse then alcohol or tobacco.. but if either of these things were discovered tomorrow do you think they'd have the same laws attached as they currently do? Tobacco would probably be outlawed completely. Personally I would like to see it legalised only in non smokable forms (or maybe non smokable forms outside a private residence), soley for the fact that I already have to deal with people smoking cigarettes blowing their smoke all over the place, I don't need to get high walking to work.
  • by stonewallred (1465497) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:10PM (#32986214)
    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.
  • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:15PM (#32986246) Homepage

    Hmm, but I smell the high smell of marijuana growing being handed over to licensed only agro-corporations and individuals will be fined for attempting to grow it themselves under penalties of tax evasion. Only four licensed operation, hmm, corporate drug cartels with government lobbied grossly inflated profit margins.

    Still better than throwing away billions destroying peoples lives with militaristic raids and extended prison sentences in order to protect them from 'er' destroying the lives having a 'good time' getting high but not being dutiful mass consuming worker drones whilst doing it.

    As long as they allow and provide grow your own permits, not for sale or distribution. This allows for a measure of product control, ensures simpler taxation management and means that those who can only afford to grow their own can continue to do so.

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:32PM (#32986334)
    Why not simply let it be sold like any other product? I really don't see what the difference is between tobacco/pot compared to corn, beans and other foodstuffs. Alcohol is slightly different because if you screw it up it can have toxic side effects but really when was the last time you heard of someone going to their local farmer's market to buy an ear of corn and it had toxic side effects? A plant is a plant is a plant. I similarly don't understand having different tax rates, unless the government goes around helping people grow something, it just needs a tiny sales tax.

    Its completely stupid to tax something just because you don't like people doing it. Taxes should -only- reflect the 2 things a government should do, protect their citizens from force and fraud. If the government does something special to benefit someone/something they should be charged a higher rate, but its stupid to tax someone because you don't like it.

    And for the record, no, I don't smoke tobacco or marijuana, I think its a terrible habit that stinks and is bad for the body. But thats just it, I can choose not to do that. I can choose not to smoke, I can choose not to drink, I can choose not to eat McDonalds daily, that is my choice. I choose what I want, other people can choose what they want, I don't force my choices on them and they don't on me. That is how freedom works. If I don't like tobacco smoke, I don't smoke, I don't go to places without a dedicated non-smoking seating. If a business wants to allow people to smoke, let them. If I don't want to eat there because of it, I will take my business elsewhere.
  • by Bing Tsher E (943915) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:40PM (#32986380) Journal

    The move to medicalize (is that a word?) marijuana will work against moves for industrial hemp. Cultivation will need to be taxed and controlled, just like alcohol. Part of the challenge for the government controllers is going to be that it's, well, a weed. Unlike tobacco, cultivation isn't confined to only a few special regions of land, and processing/curing isn't difficult either.

    They're not going to want people growing hundreds of acres, even though growing operations of that scale would doubtless dilute the 'potency' anyway. It's just too easy for people to slip in a row or two of 'potent' weeds. It's too hard to control it and still allow cultivation on an industrial scale for fiber.

    What we really need to figure out a use for is kudzu. Since that's pretty much all that we're going to be growing in whole regions before too long.

  • Re:sheesh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:41PM (#32986392)

    you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc),

    I think the words you are looking for are "chemically dependent". There is no measurable dependency, unlike tobacco.

    Many forms of addiction are entirely psychological such as alcoholism and gambling addictions and this depends on the kind of person taking the drug (thus blanket bans are not productive). It's ignorant to say that there is no risk, just as it's ignorant to say that dope will make you crazy and kill your family. I agree with your sentiment that it should at the very least be decriminalised, if not legalised and treated the same as tobacco or alcohol but there are still risks from smoking marijuana the same as there are risks from drinking alcohol. But these are risks we as a society accept and in many cases control outside of controlling the drug (I.E. drinking and driving).

  • by mjwx (966435) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:44PM (#32986414)

    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.

  • by WillDraven (760005) on Wednesday July 21, 2010 @11:56PM (#32986468) Homepage

    Being arrested for smoking pot is much more likely to ruin your life than the actual act of smoking it.

  • by TyFoN (12980) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @12:39AM (#32986600)

    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.

  • by dryeo (100693) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @12:45AM (#32986616)

    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.

  • by dissy (172727) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:28AM (#32986764)

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

    Really? I'm 100% certain you are incorrect.

    Please quote to us the part of the constitution which removes our right to get drunk and high. I do not see it.

    Yes, at one point there was such an amendment in our law, and during that time we did not have the right to get drunk (or high?) however that amendment was removed awhile ago so no longer applies.

    So yea, which part in there do you believe grants the government the ability to revoke our right to get drunk or high?

    Just like firewall rules, if you don't find a matching rule, the default policy is to allow.

  • ...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.

  • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @01:54AM (#32986904)

    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 [wikipedia.org], another citation [acde.org] 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.

  • by Alarindris (1253418) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:06AM (#32986948)
    Don't work where you personal rights are violated. It's that simple.

    If you choose to take a job where you get drug tested, well that's your choice. There are plenty of places that don't test.
  • by afidel (530433) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:27AM (#32987054)
    The constitution is the supreme law of the land and until the supreme court changes their view on the commerce clause the federal government will have a legal right to enforce federal drug statutes. Do I like it, or even agree with their flawed logic? No, of course not. The overreaching interpretation of the commerce clause is probably one of the SC decisions that it most obviously far from the framers intentions.
  • by mikael_j (106439) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:32AM (#32987072)

    Yep. [ama-assn.org]

    I stopped reading after "Marijuana use prior to injury was determined prospectively in 1023 patients injured as the result of vehicular (67.6%) and nonvehicular (32.4%) trauma.". Do you know why? Because those aren't "marijuana deaths" any more than me smoking a cigarette and jumping of a building is a "tobacco death". When people talk about "marijuana deaths" in this context they mean overdoses or causes of deaths otherwise directly attributable to marijuana use, not "he was an idiot, got high, drove off and died". All that tells us is that driving while drunk or high is a bad idea and should be avoided, doesn't tell us that being high in itself is a bad idea (but it is common knowledge through many many years of research and practical experience that alcohol really can kill you simply because you drank too much of it).

  • by elucido (870205) * on Thursday July 22, 2010 @02:44AM (#32987128)

    Kudzu is for feeding goats. If you can get Americans to eat goat meat, you'll wipe out kudzu in short order.

    Put goat meat in American supermarkets and they'll eat it. Americans eat anything and they don't care what it is.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @07:02AM (#32987940) Homepage Journal

    So you have a citation, then?

    Yep.

    You're talking about traffic deaths, we're talking about marijuana deaths. 85,000 people die every year in the USA alone directly due to consumption of alcohol, which is to say dying of alcohol poisoning or choking on vomit. Now, find a real citation, or admit that you're spreading FUD.

    You are paranoid, I'm not against you sir. I push no agenda

    You are indeed attempting to push an anti-marijuana agenda with a dearth of facts. Hit up your local dictionary if you don't believe me.

    It is a miracle drug without a doubt. It is not a cure though.

    Actually, there are indications that it not only reduces lung cancer risk, but also fights various other cancers. And cancer is one of those things that you don't really cure, you just fight off individual cancers or not. Even most people who die of something other than cancer have had cancer and beat it, often multiple times. It happens on a small scale all the time and you don't even notice.

    Legal recreational use will create unforeseen problems, while perhaps minor, it will not result in world peace.

    Now you're really attacking a straw man. Are you addicted to logical fallacy?

  • Not irrational (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22, 2010 @07:33AM (#32988086)

    For some reason the feds (and some local fiefdoms) have an irrational fear of marijuana

    Fear has nothing to do with it. Drug prohibition rakes billions of dollars through the business of government each year. Drug prohibition gives them the justification they need for continuous expansion of power and revenue. It sets precedents that can be leveraged in other sectors of government. There is an entire industry built around drug prohibition, and the architects were after one thing: money.

    Imagine yourself an executive in the business of government, and do the math.

  • by TheCarp (96830) <sjc&carpanet,net> on Thursday July 22, 2010 @08:02AM (#32988232) Homepage

    It is kind of a chicken and egg sort of problem. I mean, goat meat is out there, but its rare. I can find ground lamb too, but, its not something alot of people cook with, so not every store bothers, and not all the time. Ground beef? I can buy any day at any store.

    People buy what they are used to, and what they know how to cook. You need to get it out there for people to get used to it to create a market for it. Of course, whats the incentive for any individual to get it out there and take initial losses hoping that enough people start cooking with it to make it viable? Even if the payoff for all of us is big in the medium to long term, its hard to find enough individuals (especially without organizing them around a cause) that will be willing to take that short term loss when they can't expect to see the long term gain themselves (to the grocer selling beef vs goat isn't a big difference as long as it sells)

    -Steve

  • Oblig Blind Faith (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday July 22, 2010 @09:49AM (#32989286) Homepage Journal

    I'm weary and I just ain't got the time, and I'm wasted and I can't find my way home.

    To hell with medical pot, when is it going to be legal for all adults? It's one of the safest psychoactive drugs there is. There is no lethal dose, there is no physical addiction (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or tobacco), and actually prevents cancer. [sciencedaily.com] If you smoke cigarettes, you really should be smoking pot as well. [washingtonpost.com]

    The laws against it cause all the problems it purports to solve, just as alcohol prohibition did. Teenagers shouldn't smoke pot [sciencedaily.com], but unlike beer, it's easier for a teen to obtain than it is for an adult. Like alcohol prohibition, it allows adulterants to be added whether on purpose or accident; you cannot regulate an illegal substance. Its prohibition finances violent gangs. Marijuana doesn't "lead to harder drugs", but its prohibition does, since the people who sell heroin and cocaine also sell marijuana. Rather than wasting tax dollars jailing dopers, it could be taxed itself.

    There is no reason whatever for this plant to be against the law. The only people who the pot laws help are those who grow, import, and sell it. Anyone who is for pot being against the law is being duped or bribed by the drug cartels.

  • by Muad'Dave (255648) on Thursday July 22, 2010 @11:14AM (#32990452) Homepage

    Think of the poor birds that live downwind! No tern will be left unstoned.

[Crash programs] fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...