Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the grow-em-if-you-got-em dept.

Government 690

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."

cancel ×

690 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (4, Funny)

bigspring (1791856) | about 4 years ago | (#32985080)

You know how those wacky developers are with their marijuana!

Re:Well... (5, Funny)

beakerMeep (716990) | about 4 years ago | (#32985220)

int Main()
{
splif_f("Hellooooooo, World-dude!")
return 420;
}

Re:Well... (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | about 4 years ago | (#32985334)

You know how those wacky developers are with their marijuana!

Would that be Silibong Valley?

Stoners... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985086)

Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation.

Hey man, those computer things are totall--- hey you got any doritos?

Oakland needs to mellow out (4, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#32985112)

With all the violence and protests in Oakland, a lot of pot is needed to help everyone just mellow out, man.

Now who's coming to the Phish concert with me?

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it! (1)

sv_libertarian (1317837) | about 4 years ago | (#32985116)

Shades of Heinlein. Seems several of his books mentioned marijuana farms.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985134)

fuck you you libertarian assrapist douchebag! no one cares about your heineken hero and no stoners want you cramping their vibe, GTFO!

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#32985364)

Shades of Heinlein. Seems several of his books mentioned marijuana farms.

The Number of the Beast comes to mind but that was in a parallel universe where colonial england ran half of mars. I can't recall him using that idea anywhere else. Could be wrong of course.

Re:Put that in yer pipe and smoke it! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985580)

ur a fag

protectionism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985136)

Not to worry, federal "import tariffs" will ensure Silicon Valley weed farms don't go the same way as the chip fabs for quite a long time.

Re:protectionism (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 4 years ago | (#32985474)

Let's hope they get an ImportError.

How long will that last? (4, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | about 4 years ago | (#32985142)

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

Re:How long will that last? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#32985156)

Flamethrowers, huh? Wouldn't it be easier just to use a Bic?

Re:How long will that last? (1)

poormanjoe (889634) | about 4 years ago | (#32985502)

No they are still wet. Wet plants don't burn well. That's why you don't see wildfires in southern Louisiana. Usually during busts marijuana plants are up rooted, put in a pile, and use some fire source.

Re:How long will that last? (3, Funny)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 4 years ago | (#32985190)

No, no, flamethrowers is the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The FBI doesn't do the heavy stuff anymore unless its the Hostage Rescue Team. You can't get the napalm smell out of those nice suits.

You fly back to school now, little Starling. Fly, Fly, Fly.

Re:How long will that last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985226)

With the.. *ahem*unrest*cough*... that this town goes into over events, im not sure they want to throw that rock into the hornet's nest.

states right kind of get in the way! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#32985268)

states right kind of get in the way!

any ways we spend way to much to lock up Marjuana uses, dealers, and farmers.

Re:How long will that last? (5, Funny)

minorproblem (891991) | about 4 years ago | (#32985278)

If so i plan on holding a LAN party down wind... make sure you bring nachos!

Re:How long will that last? (2, Funny)

The Hatchet (1766306) | about 4 years ago | (#32985284)

flamethrowers and pot farms. Boy, the city downwind of that is going to have a nice day.

Re:How long will that last? (2, Insightful)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 4 years ago | (#32985348)

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.

Re:How long will that last? (2)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | about 4 years ago | (#32985496)

FBI agents need to mellow up, too.

Other impacts (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985146)

I'd be interested to see the enrollment statistics for agricultural studies from community colleges and universities in the Bay Area 3 months from now.

Re:Other impacts (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985484)

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

Groovy.. (2)

phrackwulf (589741) | about 4 years ago | (#32985150)

Somebody had to say it.

Starting to think of moving to the USA... (5, Interesting)

ZigiSamblak (745960) | about 4 years ago | (#32985166)

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... (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 years ago | (#32985218)

The difference is that you can have it for whatever reason you want. In the US, as an individual, you have to get a prescription for it from your doctor.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985258)

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

FTFY.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 years ago | (#32985314)

To be pedantic, it varies by state. In California, there are doctors who do nothing but sell weed prescriptions. In most states, it's still illegal.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985406)

parent + gp: To be pedantic, prescriptions are federal and Cannabis is Schedule I so no doctor may write a prescription for Cannabis. Instead doctors give recommendations to use Cannabis.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#32985510)

Umm, no I had a prescription in the State of Oregon for medical pot.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985528)

And you don't pay for it, you make a "donnation". The semantics don't really matter. Note also that CA can no longer afford to incarcerate all the users.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (4, Informative)

Surt (22457) | about 4 years ago | (#32985270)

Don't move yet. The USA at the federal government level doesn't approve of this (though they are currently turning an INFORMAL blind eye to it), and may well jail anyone who actually tries to run an industrial scale marijuana farm.

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985542)

Except that they can't because they have no jurisdiction. Yeah, sorry that pesky Constitution thingy again. If the pot is grown, sold and used inside the state there isn't a damn thing the feds can do about it.

This is an identical concept to getting around federal firearms laws which don't apply if the weapon is manufactured and sold in the all in the same state.

Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists (4, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985168)

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

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

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985204)

Fucked again by a pay wall... Sorry 'bout that...

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985320)

"Drinking beer and smoking dope together is like pissing into the wind" - Freewheelin' Franklin (often attributed to Fat Freddy himself).

And why did the US repeal prohibition? For the tax revenue after the depression wiped out capital gains...

Re:Now it's time to remind the prohibitionists (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985450)

Oh boy, if history repeats itself that accurately, another world war is just around the corner..

Silicon Valley of pot? (4, Funny)

Freddybear (1805256) | about 4 years ago | (#32985172)

I once smoked an Intel chip, all it did was make me cry. ;)

Re:Silicon Valley of pot? (0)

DWMorse (1816016) | about 4 years ago | (#32985366)

Never mod points when you need them. +1 Funny.

msnbc (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985186)

According to MSNBC:

That's as far as I got...

That didn't take long (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32985196)

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.

Re:That didn't take long (-1)

inKubus (199753) | about 4 years ago | (#32985292)

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs, we'd get addicted, then there would be a sort of reverse Opium War except instead of the British invading China, it'd be China invading us. Granted, a lot of that is blown out of proportion.

I do think you should have to

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

before you can get the legal stuff. After that, it's pretty much up to the person. Why shouldn't stimulants be legal also? Lots of people are prescribed Ritalin and Adderal.

Re:That didn't take long (1, Interesting)

inKubus (199753) | about 4 years ago | (#32985298)

Oh and F. hang around with a real addict or two for a few days.

Re:That didn't take long (1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32985530)

Oh and F. hang around with a real addict or two for a few days.

Few extended families have not been affected in one way or another by addiction, whether to drugs or alcohol. But I still don't see how the legality or illegality of marijuana is going to affect the rates of addiction.

Pot is already the number 1 cash crop of the state of California. Considering that the Salinas area is considered the "Salad bowl of the Nation" that's saying an awful lot. To keep such an enormous economy underground and off-the-books is just not reasonable.

Re:That didn't take long (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985372)

The problem is that everyone would do the drugs, we'd get addicted, then there would be a sort of reverse Opium War except instead of the British invading China, it'd be China invading us. Granted, a lot of that is blown out of proportion.

I do think you should have to

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

before you can get the legal stuff. After that, it's pretty much up to the person. Why shouldn't stimulants be legal also? Lots of people are prescribed Ritalin and Adderal.

If all of that is any more difficult than just doing it illegally, then you are still going to fund the black market and lose out on all the available tax revenues that an open regulated legal market would have provided.

Your logic is pretty shitty at best, no offense. You think sane reform of legislated morality would result in people doing drugs and getting addicted? First prove that anyone who wants to do drugs is currently unable to find them because of their illegal status. Hint: it isn't working, it hasn't worked, and it will never work. They cannot even keep drugs out of prisons, you really think the legal staus is keeping them out of regular society? Abandon this control fantasy, we've tried that for decades and it has never worked. Besides, most drug users want to leave you alone while being left alone by you. Most of them are not criminals except that they violate drug possession laws. Unlike sane areas of law, drug possession does not involve harming any other human being.

Re:That didn't take long (3, Insightful)

Internet_Communist (592634) | about 4 years ago | (#32985422)

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.

Re:That didn't take long (3, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#32985472)

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 (0, Troll)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#32985574)

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

Re:That didn't take long (3, Insightful)

swb (14022) | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:That didn't take long (1)

rthille (8526) | about 4 years ago | (#32985456)

Not sure about your predisposition to addiction, but I'm sure that some people are susceptible.
However, when my ex-wife's mother was dying, they figured that she had at most 2 months to live, and the doctors and hospice (!) were worried about her getting addicted. WFT?

Re:That didn't take long (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#32985508)

Have you tried botox? Seriously - botox works incredibly well for many people with migranes. It's not addictive, you only need a treatment every 2-3 months, maybe even less frequently. Dunno how much you pay for pain meds, what with copays and all, but 100% out of pocket, botox ought to be significantly less than $500 per treatment - a few years back it was in the ~$300 range if you shopped around. I've heard that it's become less popular for cosmetic uses (not really sure why, maybe fads change, maybe it's the economy) which might have brought prices down even further.

Re:That didn't take long (5, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#32985532)

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 (1)

Briden (1003105) | about 4 years ago | (#32985556)

a great documentary on the subject, from a canadian point of view: http://www.theunionmovie.com/TheUnionWeb.html [theunionmovie.com]

after watching this, you will understand why it should be legalized. and why it never will be.

Re:That didn't take long (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | about 4 years ago | (#32985562)

Its going to push small operations out of business, it's the consolidation of medical pot in Oakland.

My mother was a pot grower and dealer throughout the 1980s and 90s, she always said laws liberalizing pot were always going to be resisted by the dealers and growers.

Now, the idea that pain medication is under prescribed is nonsense or had to get a script for it ridiculous.. I've had no trouble over the years getting Vicodin, Oxycontin, Opana, Avinza, MS Contin, Methadone and finally Fentanyl patches (which I used daily for 14 months.)

fair comparison (3, Funny)

v1 (525388) | about 4 years ago | (#32985198)

Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Both industries go through a lot of chips.

Northern California (4, Informative)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 4 years ago | (#32985210)

As someone who grew up in Northern California proper (and now lives in Silicon Valley), I must protest. We already have our "Silicon Valley" of maryjane -- it's called the Emerald Triangle [wikipedia.org] . Not to mention, my county has already decriminalized cultivation of the good herb (grep for "Measure G" [wikipedia.org] ), at least for personal use.

Although, it would be illegal to grow GMO weed there (search for "Measure H" [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:Northern California (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#32985512)

You're so far behind the times it's not even funny. Oakland has a district known as Oaksterdam which has its own newspaper; it's pretty thick for a free rag, too. And there have been warehouses of this type operating in Oakland for some time now.

This is a particularly interesting test of States' Rights, and it will be more than interesting to see how it plays out.

lol (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#32985230)

How long until these morons realize the reason it's called "WEED" is because it IS a weed. You can easily grow it in your backyard and a single, well maintained plant can keep even the heaviest smoker in pot all year long. Grow 2 or 3 and its enough for the whole family and you really don't have to do much to take care of it. The only reason the price for pot is even as high as it is now is the fact that its illegal. They aren't going to make squat on taxes on pot, because once it's legal its going to be growing in every backyard, ditch, park and camp ground in the state.

Re:lol (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985256)

Just like that beer we all homebrew instead of buying it?

Weed grown as you suggest is total garbage. Much like all useful plants careful cultivation is needed. OR SO I HEARD.

Re:lol (1)

minorproblem (891991) | about 4 years ago | (#32985310)

Case in point, the Netherlands.

Re:lol (5, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985322)

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:lol (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985420)

Again look at the Netherlands, and the fact that growing pot like that makes garbage.

Re:lol (2, Interesting)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985476)

And I can remind you again that decent cultivation requires only a hippy chick with a pair of clippers and some time in the sun. Unlike the Netherlands, much of the US has plenty of sun.

Re:lol (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985550)

and brewing is wine is almost that easy too.

People will not want to wait months to get high, they will want to go buy some already dried herb.

Nah, u wrong (1)

Ubitsa_teh_1337 (1006277) | about 4 years ago | (#32985548)

Yea, and what kinda hash can you get from it? That's right, epic hash :-p Home-grown plants can also be used to bake with quite nicely.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985346)

You have heard wrong. The only problem with outdoor stuff is stopping it from becoming pollinated.

Sincerly, pot smoker and gardener for 35yrs.

Re:lol (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985414)

Only because you want to smoke bales of that crap.

Re:lol (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 4 years ago | (#32985540)

Pot potency is determined primarily by genetics.

If you can grow tomatoes you can grow good sensi.

As with tomatoes your first crop will teach you many things.

Smoking all year on one plant is ambitious.

You want more then one type for other reasons.

Some nefarious troublemaker planted 4 OG-kush, a G-13 and a Purple between rows in my vegetable garden this year. Damn him.

Re:lol (3, Informative)

kaoshin (110328) | about 4 years ago | (#32985374)

I have multiple friends who brew their own beer, and I can tell you that it is a lot more complicated than growing a plant.

Re:lol (1)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | about 4 years ago | (#32985282)

Just because one can feasibly do something oneself, doesn't mean that most people will. People are lazy. (How do computer makers stay in business when people could easily just buy the parts and assemble them themselves?)

Re:lol (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 4 years ago | (#32985390)

It really depends on the price. People don't grow gardens of carrots and lettuce in their back yard, because they are relatively cheap, and because you need a lot, and most people don't have enough land. Contrast that with say, herbs (like oregano, thyme, and rosemary) which many people do grow, because fresh herbs are expensive, and it takes very little land to grow all the herbs you need. They could probably sell marijuana, as long as the price was cheap, but if they start taxing it heavily like alcohol, you can bet that a lot of people are going to be growing their own. Unlike making your own alcohol, growing marijuana is actually pretty simple, and doesn't require that much effort or space. Your comments are more like, "how do grocery stores stay alive when you can just get food pre-made at McDonald's, or have pizza delivered to your door?" Sure some people will pay the premium to have everything done for them, but a lot of people are willing to make their own meals, because it saves a lot of money, or for the same price, you get a much better product.

Re:lol (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#32985458)

Where I used to live my neighbors complained that the stuff was growing up under their back fence. Another neighbor of mine had a plant he claimed was for horticultural purposes in his front yard. A couple of kids broke into his neighbor and escaped into his place, landing on the plant. They were running too hard to do anything more than note it and because of all the cops around the next day the plant had to be moved pronto. My problem was that during the next night the kids came back, crossing my back yard and looking over the fence for the plant. Pissed me off to no end so I called the cops (not for the first time).

When will businesses relax their testing? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#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.

Likely legalization US-wide by 2020? (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 years ago | (#32985242)

I think governments get that trying to stop it is a colossal waste in an era of shrinking revenue and resources and that legalizing it enables a revenue source that has thus been untapped.

I don't think the Feds will necessarily roll over, but the smart states will realize that if they get on top of it before it becomes Federalized they can collect pretty much all the taxes on it -- production, wholesale, retail, plus licensing fees to growers, wholesalers and retailers; smart regulations will ensure only in-state product is sold by anyone at any level.

Re:Likely legalization US-wide by 2020? (2, Funny)

by (1706743) (1706744) | about 4 years ago | (#32985290)

...a revenue source that has thus been untapped.

Wrong word; prostitution is a revenue source that is untapped (in the U.S.A., except for Nevada).

Marijuana, on the other hand, is a revenue source that hasn't been hit.

Re:Likely legalization US-wide by 2020? (1)

maxume (22995) | about 4 years ago | (#32985482)

The IRS doesn't care where you get your income from, and they expect you to pay your taxes.

Corporate take over of pot farming (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#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?

Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (5, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | about 4 years ago | (#32985266)

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.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985306)

Why?
It adds another good reason to legalize. Just like with alcohol prohibition the government gives up tons of revenue and then wastes money arresting people.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 4 years ago | (#32985368)

I would think rounding up all the drug dealers and taking all their money would raise the most money.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985426)

Half-assed legalization in CA has already put a lot of small dealers out of business. What sucks is seeing all the young kids smoking high-quality product (including concentrates) on the street, especially when mixed with tobacco. If you leave marijuana illegal, you should also make tobacco illegal. There's no real logic to these laws.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985432)

Compared to taxes? Are you crazy?

That is a one time thing, this is on going income.

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (5, Insightful)

Deadstick (535032) | about 4 years ago | (#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

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (5, Insightful)

MadUndergrad (950779) | about 4 years ago | (#32985440)

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

Re:Great Outcome Ridiculous Reasons (1)

swb (14022) | about 4 years ago | (#32985452)

While it would be great to see the government doing the right thing for the right reasons, when did THAT last happen?

Personally, I don't have an issue with it, and it's hardly a new meme in the legalization fight. It's always been a plank in the legalization platform that legalization could/would/should be taxed for revenue purposes, just as liquor and cigarettes are now.

I think most smart government officials realize that there's a window of time between the local legalization of marijuana and the eventual Federal legalization of marijuana where the locals get to collect ALL the taxes -- production, wholesale, retail, licensing fees at all levels, you name it.

Once it's legalized at the Federal level, the Feds will swoop in and excise tax the shit out of it, leaving only morsels & local regulation licensing fees left for local government. They can only tax it so much before it becomes sensible to grow your own or people shift back to the black market.

sheesh! (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 4 years ago | (#32985288)

the feds and all 50 state govs should just legalize it already, you can not die from an overdose, you can not get addicted to it like hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, meth & etc), make the pot laws like alcohol, anyone over 18 or 21 years old is ok & no driving under the influence, and like alcohol anyone can grow for personal use only, and the stuff grown for sale in stores will contribute in taxes. (at least the quality will be regulated and you dont have to worry about some mad-scientist spraying dangerous chemicals on it.

Re:sheesh! (1)

grumling (94709) | about 4 years ago | (#32985418)

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

Just you wait. Once it's legal, Monsanto will make it highly addictive and if you smoke enough you'll die. But it will be one hell of a high!

Moore's Law (1)

ThomConspicuous (1004135) | about 4 years ago | (#32985318)

Is it possible we'll also have a similar theoretical law predicting the growth in complexity of THC?

A curious mix of Depression 2.0 and Lotto (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 4 years ago | (#32985326)

First, the Obama administration is already not prosecuting people, as long as they follow state law. It's not a total lift of Prohibition 2.0, but it's as close as you can get without untangling the web of international treaties and Federal laws that prop up the insane "war on drugs".

Second, It will be like Lotto and other forms of legalized gambling. As soon as one state gets it, the other states get revenue envy. The dominoes tumble.

The tide has been turning for quite some time. Prop 215 is... how old? This is just one more wave, washing away the hypocrisy of Prohibition 2.0. Economic hard times will also have a way of making prohibitionists forget their "morality" if money is to be had.

I remarked some time ago, that if there is a California association of Restaurants and Motel owners, they should be heartily endorsing this, and Prop 19 (tax and regulate) on the ballot this fall. Can you say "drug tourist dollars"?

Re:A curious mix of Depression 2.0 and Lotto (1)

Concern Is A Faggot (859837) | about 4 years ago | (#32985490)

First, the Obama administration is already not
prosecuting people, as long as they follow state law.

Horseshit. [reason.com]

Wonder how popular it will be when RJR starts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985332)

I wonder how popular this whole movement will be when RJR, Phillip Morris, Anheuser Busch, and Monsanto get into the game. I predict that weed cultivation will only be a popular cause until it actually becomes an established big buisness. Then it will be vilified.

Re:Wonder how popular it will be when RJR starts (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#32985444)

You can get loose no-chemical added tobacco, Micro-Brew beer and Organic veggies, why would this be any different?

I opened the front page here (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | about 4 years ago | (#32985352)

And guess how many comments the article had...

That's right... 42!

Is that what you would call "serendipity"? Or was it just a coincidence?

Waiting for press release..... (2, Funny)

failedlogic (627314) | about 4 years ago | (#32985388)

I'm just waiting for a press release from Snoop Dogg - btw I did check his twitter account before posting this - nothing ...... yet!!!.

FOR PRESS RELEASE. Oakland, CA - Acclaimed rap star Snoop Dogg, a multi-platinum record seller, has today announced that he is moving to Oakland, California. Snoop would like to tell his fans - "the shizzle is more growing opportunities for my rap in Oaktown. Ain't nothing growin' where I am. You know, I need more green for my raps.". Snoop hopes his fans can support him while he waits for the growing opportunities in Oakland to help him record his next album.

Federal Enforcement Roadmap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985412)

Step 1) Let Oakland "legalize" giant industrial pot farms, producing dozens if not hundreds of pounds of pot per day, selling it in bulk to bay-area collectives.
Step 2) Continue turning a blind eye while production and profits ramp up.
Step 3) Whoever gets elected after Obama decides to start enforcing federal drug laws again in California and whichever federal dept wins the asset-forfeiture lotto doesn't have to worry about sneaking their budget past congress for the next few decades.

Good for the consumer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985430)

...but not so good for all of my friends with the small-scale operations.

Posting AC for a reason.

Oh, now, here we go (1)

PagosaSam (884523) | about 4 years ago | (#32985436)

Are we trading one narco crime inc. for another? Laws will limit production to 4 government farms and shutting down small farms and individual growers.

Limited production, high taxes, regulation, and a ready and gifted police force to enforce it all. Here come the ATF jack boots to crash through grandma's door to pull up her magic plant. It's sad really...

Why can't they just legalize personal production and use and be done with it? Oh, right, the taxes. How long will it be before the boys from down south match their price???

Pass it to the Left (1, Troll)

poormanjoe (889634) | about 4 years ago | (#32985460)

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. No not everyone would just like not all cigarette smokers get cancer, 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.

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? 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.

Re:Pass it to the Left (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#32985538)

So insist on vaporizing: no combustion, no carcinogens. Or cooking.

Re:Pass it to the Left (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#32985578)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>