Octopus Overlords

I knew a guy who brewed what he called "swish". The internet defines this as distilling leftover alcohol from a previously used barrel, but I'm more familiar with it as fermenting Koolaid (or some damn thing). At any rate, it was ridiculously cheap and easy, with no lovely side effects like wood alcohol poisoning. Much easier than growing pot, which requires a lot of artificial light if you're doing it indoors, just to cite the initial complication.

silverjon wrote:I knew a guy who brewed what he called "swish". The internet defines this as distilling leftover alcohol from a previously used barrel, but I'm more familiar with it as fermenting Koolaid (or some damn thing). At any rate, it was ridiculously cheap and easy, with no lovely side effects like wood alcohol poisoning. Much easier than growing pot, which requires a lot of artificial light if you're doing it indoors, just to cite the initial complication.

how/why could you distill 'leftover' alcohol?

I'm guessing because the barrels are cheap (unless you buy them for landscaping, then... dang). You're not getting a good drink out of the residue, but it will get you loaded.

Let's have a little help from Urban Dictionary, shall we?

Swish is a fucking horrible drink that is made by taking a barrel that any kind of hard liquer has been aged in, fillin it up with water, and waiting for it soak up all the liquer juices, it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, it is fucking nearly impossible to swallow, but it gets you insanely drunk and is cheap as fuck. The biggest downside of it is that it can blind or kill you, but the price is right!

Like I said, this wasn't the drink *I* know as swish, and it's sure as hell not appealing to the same people as microbreweries, but I can also see how and why somebody came up with the idea.

Skeptic wrote:Holy crap that article Cheeba linked to was bad! I mean if you want to be a journalist, rather than a political pundit, you have to do better than that.

Wow I am shocked you did not like it. You do understand it was an op-ed piece and the writers were the "directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administrations of Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush" and not journalists, right? I mean it says so right there on the top plain as day. Maybe you were high and missed it.

However, you did not address the actual findings presented in the piece I quoted, so I guess if you want to talk about the difficulty of cultivating pot then I'll not be participating, lol.

Skeptic wrote:Auto-accidents are few and far between(at best) and usually happen UNDER the speed limit. Violence doesn't happen because one is stoned. And while both alcohol and marijuana impair judgment and reaction, even being just over the legal limit for alcohol is far more dangerous than being mega-stoned off the best weed you can find.

You do have numbers or references to back up these claims, right? Personally I wouldn't say between 4-14% of injury auto accidents is "few and far between(at best)", but then again I'm apparently some kind of superman since I am able to drink a single beer without feeling the effects (if it's the normal 5%'ish).

silverjon: what, was pruno too hard to make?

Skeptic wrote:marijuana is not easy or cheap to cultivate at all. Trust me, I am part of a grow-op and just to get even 20-30 plants going in one bedroom(as opposed to renting a better facility like a house or something) has cost several thousand dollars. You got lighting, pesticides, special fertilizers, cloning machine(or buying the clones themselves which is much more expensive in the long run), pots, tools(for clipping etc.), seeds/plants, dealing with 'root rot' etc.

True if you're growing commercially or if you want your personal supply to meet the highest (heh) standards. Not true if you're just dabbling. I believe the author's point is that one can toss some seeds into one's legal 25 sq ft plot and grow a little weed. It might not meet connoisseur standards but it will get the job done. Ditchweed is the Budweiser of pot.

Or so I'm told.

Isgrimnur wrote:silverjon: what, was pruno too hard to make?

If fermented Koolaid works, then I vote yes. Yes it is.

Kraken wrote:

Skeptic wrote:marijuana is not easy or cheap to cultivate at all. Trust me, I am part of a grow-op and just to get even 20-30 plants going in one bedroom(as opposed to renting a better facility like a house or something) has cost several thousand dollars. You got lighting, pesticides, special fertilizers, cloning machine(or buying the clones themselves which is much more expensive in the long run), pots, tools(for clipping etc.), seeds/plants, dealing with 'root rot' etc.

True if you're growing commercially or if you want your personal supply to meet the highest (heh) standards. Not true if you're just dabbling. I believe the author's point is that one can toss some seeds into one's legal 25 sq ft plot and grow a little weed. It might not meet connoisseur standards but it will get the job done. Ditchweed is the Budweiser of pot.

Or so I'm told.

Hmm, well a person would only want female plants, and unpollinated ones at that, so successful cultivation requires some knowledge and extra effort (although a gardener like yourself could hit the ground running for sure). How would commercial ganja production compare to tobacco? Why don't more people grow tobacco for personal use? I would guess that marijuana produces more product per acre, but tobacco has more demand (per consumer). Could left-handers even be cheaper than right-handers?! Would RJR jump right in, you think?
You've come a long way, dude!
Alive with relaxation!

RuperT wrote:Hmm, well a person would only want female plants, and unpollinated ones at that, so successful cultivation requires some knowledge and extra effort (although a gardener like yourself could hit the ground running for sure).

If legalized, the effect of pollenization will be a potentially large burden on hobby growers and small production growers as well. The number of people who will attempt to grow plants in their yards is going to introduce a considerable amount of pollen into the environment both airborne and via insects. Most amateurs aren't going to be able to separate their plants correctly, and there will be males growing wild, which is situation that currently doesn't exist.

The only way to prevent wild pollenization is to grow in a "clean room" environment. A clean room will be be next to impossible for the current growers who are using spare bedrooms and basements. I imagine that the large growing operations that are setting up shop in Oakland have already considered how to do their clean rooms.

RuperT wrote:How would commercial ganja production compare to tobacco?

See above... Commercial marijuana production will be almost exclusively indoors and in a large controlled environment. Imagine the monetary loss if a single bee carrying pollen were to get into a large grow room. There are also security concerns that don't exist with tobacco production... see below.

RuperT wrote:Why don't more people grow tobacco for personal use?

Two things prevent personal tobacco production. First is the old federal price support system imposed severe regulation on production. It wan't legal to produce tobacco without a federal allotment. I don't think the regulation prevented an individual from growing a plant or two, but because all seed was sold in bulk one would have to shell out about $1000 for an entire box of seed in order to acquire the one or two needed.

The other thing that prevents personal tobacco production is the curing process is too complicated for amateurs. Tobacco used for cigars is shade cured which involves creating a large pile of tobacco leaves in a shady place, and then waiting for them to ferment. The process requires adding moisture and occasional turning the pile. It's a bit like composting, and like composting the process requires a minimum quantity of material to get the process started. Cigarette tobacco is actually a specific variety of tobacco called "bright leaf" and the tobacco is cured by hanging the leaves in a barn that is heated. This is called flue curing, and the process takes a few weeks with daily supervision.

Because uncured tobacco is useless, tobacco growers don't have security concerns. Even completely cured tobacco that hasn't been processed would be an inferior smoking experience over what is available at retail. Marijuana on the other hand is quite useful with a bit of drying, therefore theft is a big concern.

silverjon wrote:I'm guessing because the barrels are cheap (unless you buy them for landscaping, then... dang). You're not getting a good drink out of the residue, but it will get you loaded.

Let's have a little help from Urban Dictionary, shall we?

Swish is a fucking horrible drink that is made by taking a barrel that any kind of hard liquer has been aged in, fillin it up with water, and waiting for it soak up all the liquer juices, it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit, it is fucking nearly impossible to swallow, but it gets you insanely drunk and is cheap as fuck. The biggest downside of it is that it can blind or kill you, but the price is right!

Like I said, this wasn't the drink *I* know as swish, and it's sure as hell not appealing to the same people as microbreweries, but I can also see how and why somebody came up with the idea.

This has got to be mostly urban legend. Potent alcohol is at least 40% alcohol by volume and even if you were making everclear to start with, there's no way to store 40% of the previous stash in the barrel wood and then take 100% of it out with water.

But now I'm curious, so I'll have to look it up.

edit: Sounds totally urban legend. You CAN buy used alcohol barrels, and in fact it's common practice for a number of liquors and wine. However, you're adding new spirits and only catching some essence and flavor, not additional alcohol.

Other stuff I read said a large proportion of the finished product actually ends up being wood alcohol (which can indeed get you blind, stinking drunk). I have no idea if it's an urban legend or not, though it doesn't sound like a fantastic idea regardless.

I will legally go buy some wild turkey 101 proof from my state government and drink about half of it.

When I get up in the morning, (after I shake off my hangover) I will lecture the kids on the dangers of marijuana.

Damn pot heads!

I lied. I am really just going to sit home and play civ 4. Unless some tail opportunity comes along, then I may slide out.

But, if it ever comes up for a vote in my state I will vote to legalize. I hate spending tax payer dollars on drug war, putting people in prison, etc. all over something so trivial.
And besides, if I ever decided that instead I wanted to smoke, eat Cheetos and play civ 4 I do not really believe its anyone’s business
...

I used to be vehemently against legalization of wacky weed, but I've softened my stance considerably over the years. (Some will tell you it was due to a rather crazy experience on the lawn of a Tom Petty concert a few years ago, but I will deny it).

I'd just like to see some restrictions on it. I shouldn't have to worry about exposing my daughter to second-hand pot smoke. If you want to do it in your home, knock yourself out.

I thought this might be interesting to the participants in this thread:

BBC

George Michael has been given an eight-week sentence for crashing his car while under the influence of cannabis. He was also fined £1,250 at Highbury Corner Magistrates Court in London and given a five-year driving ban.

The 47-year-old singer was arrested in July in Hampstead, north London after driving his Range Rover into a branch of photographic store Snappy Snaps.

Last month he pleading guilty to driving under the influence of drugs and possessing cannabis.
...
In 2007 he admitted another charge of driving while unfit through use of drugs at Brent Magistrates Court in London.

From the Independent:

[Michael] said he also took the anti-depressant Amitriptyline to help him sleep. He told police he decided to drive between his homes in Highgate and Hampstead to meet a friend and forgot he had taken the sedative. District Judge Perkins said: "You drove your motor vehicle about a mile while suffering from a severe impairment as a result of mixing not only a prescription treatment with which you were unfamiliar but also with cannabis."

Common side effects of Amitriptyline include drowsiness, memory loss, blurred vision, etc. (from WikiPedia). Also, I'm guessing few if any comprehensive studies have been done regarding interactions between cannabis and Amitriptyline.

Sadly, marijuana, for all its controversy, is extremely understudied by the pharmacological establishment. In the past, funding (and support) has just not been great enough. This problem continues today (although there are some encouraging signs moving forward).

And this from the Drug Policy Alliance (the U.S.'s leading decriminalization advocacy group):

Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

Personally, I'm convinced the danger of driving while high is less than with alcohol, but still real. Regardless, I don't think this issue should prevent legalization - I believe it should be illegal to drive while sufficiently intoxicated, regardless of the substance (even cannabis). The problem is finding an efficient way to describe (and measure) what "sufficient intoxication" is while under the influence of cannabis.

Which brings us to today's most recent news story:

Michigan could become the first state in the nation to drug test drivers if a Republican lawmaker has his way. Last week, Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Lodge) announced he was filing a bill that would allow police officers to administer roadside drug tests if they have probable cause.

Jones is a former sheriff with a history of anti-medical marijuana activism. Interestingly, there are many known problems with these types of roadside drugs tests, and they have been widely disparaged by scientific researchers for their inaccuracies and false positives (even when exposed to common legal substances such as soap, chocolate or even air). Watch the National Press club press conference to see this demonstrated first-hand.

What's more troubling about these tests - even if they 100% reliably tested for the presence of THC, they still wouldn't tell whether a person was intoxicated.

Since THC has such a long half-life in the human body, a person could have ingested cannabis days earlier (and have been sober for days) - and still test positive. It's not like with an alcohol "breathzlyzer", where an exact blood/alcohol number appears that indicates intoxication at the present moment (complete with a percentage that can be legislated). Thus even if these roadside THC tests worked, there'd be no way to know just how impaired the person is, or even if they are intoxicated at all.

Yes, but you're leaving out the "probable cause" aspect. That's going to fall under the same type of observations as alcohol currently. Someone that partook days ago isn't going to be exhibiting impaired behavior or have a personal aroma that would suggest recent consumption that would pass the probable cause test.

Also, as for the intoxication part of it, that would need to be legally defined, even if it's any presence as legally intoxicated. As with alcohol, different people function in different manners at the same level of intoxication. Some people are truly impaired well before they hit the legal limit.

AjD wrote:From the Independent:

[Michael] said he also took the anti-depressant Amitriptyline to help him sleep. He told police he decided to drive between his homes in Highgate and Hampstead to meet a friend and forgot he had taken the sedative. District Judge Perkins said: "You drove your motor vehicle about a mile while suffering from a severe impairment as a result of mixing not only a prescription treatment with which you were unfamiliar but also with cannabis."

Common side effects of Amitriptyline include drowsiness, memory loss, blurred vision, etc. (from WikiPedia). Also, I'm guessing few if any comprehensive studies have been done regarding interactions between cannabis and Amitriptyline.

Sadly, marijuana, for all its controversy, is extremely understudied by the pharmacological establishment. In the past, funding (and support) has just not been great enough. This problem continues today (although there are some encouraging signs moving forward).

And this from the Drug Policy Alliance (the U.S.'s leading decriminalization advocacy group):

Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society.

Personally, I'm convinced the danger of driving while high is less than with alcohol, but still real. Regardless, I don't think this issue should prevent legalization - I believe it should be illegal to drive while sufficiently intoxicated, regardless of the substance (even cannabis). The problem is finding an efficient way to describe (and measure) what "sufficient intoxication" is while under the influence of cannabis.

Which brings us to today's most recent news story:

Michigan could become the first state in the nation to drug test drivers if a Republican lawmaker has his way. Last week, Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Lodge) announced he was filing a bill that would allow police officers to administer roadside drug tests if they have probable cause.

Jones is a former sheriff with a history of anti-medical marijuana activism. Interestingly, there are many known problems with these types of roadside drugs tests, and they have been widely disparaged by scientific researchers for their inaccuracies and false positives (even when exposed to common legal substances such as soap, chocolate or even air). Watch the National Press club press conference to see this demonstrated first-hand.

What's more troubling about these tests - even if they 100% reliably tested for the presence of THC, they still wouldn't tell whether a person was intoxicated.

Since THC has such a long half-life in the human body, a person could have ingested cannabis days earlier (and have been sober for days) - and still test positive. It's not like with an alcohol "breathzlyzer", where an exact blood/alcohol number appears that indicates intoxication at the present moment (complete with a percentage that can be legislated). Thus even if these roadside THC tests worked, there'd be no way to know just how impaired the person is, or even if they are intoxicated at all.

I can't speak for what the test is but as far as I'm concerned you don't pull someone over for driving drunk or high. You pull them over for breaking the law. When you suspect they are impaired, having pulled them over for breaking the law, you test them. If they are impaired (and that could be from 10 hours ago) then you nail them to the full extent for the breaking the law while impaired.

LordMortis wrote:I can't speak for what the test is but as far as I'm concerned you don't pull someone over for driving drunk or high. You pull them over for breaking the law. When you suspect they are impaired, having pulled them over for breaking the law, you test them.

Agreed, of course.

What concerns me is the implementation of state-wide roadside testing using methods that have been demonstrated to routinely create false positives. Especially at this particular political moment.

Michigan, as some of us know firsthand (Mortis, you're a resident, right?), is in the infancy of dealing with its medical marijuana legalization. Towns aren't sure what the rules are, and are looking for guidance on how to proceed with allowing dispensaries, grow clubs, licensed caregivers who grow in their residences, etc. Meanwhile, there is a growing momentum nationwide that marijuana will be further decriminalized (for both more widespread medical use and, perhaps, recreational use as well). Some are elated, others are afraid that all sorts of bad things are going to happen (more illegal pot everywhere, bad elements moving into town, high people driving cars into school yards, etc). There is a growing sense that some towns, municipalities, etc. are biding time while they figure out what direction the political winds are blowing.

For those opposed to marijuana's decriminalization - a large group of powerful interests with a great deal of money at stake - it would be extremely political convenient to report a whole new wave of marijuana "drugged driving incidents" in the wake of the recent medical marijuana laws. Frankly, many people won't know how flawed the tests are, and the idea that "drivers were tested on the spot" will seem incontrovertible. And if marijuana really did play a role in an accident or traffic stop, it is common for mainstream media stories to lead with "driving while high" and downplay or omit the important role of other drugs like alcohol or ill-advised prescription drug use in the incident (see the George Michael coverage in England, as just one example.)

With a Republican governor (as the polls imply might happen come November), one can imagine the anti-cannabis interests using this new "disturbing law enforcement data" to game public opinion and roll back decriminalization. Or at least gain control of cannabis in a way that keeps the money in their hands (outlawing home growing; banishing care giver licenses; only selling "pharmaceutical" grown cannabis, from a licensed pharmacy; etc).

I believe that Rep. Rick Jones (who sponsored the roadside testing bill) is a smart man. So I have to believe he knows how flawed these tests are. And yet he's sponsoring this bill... The only conclusion I can come to is it's a political calculation, for the above reasons.

LordMortis wrote:

I can't speak for what the test is but as far as I'm concerned you don't pull someone over for driving drunk or high. You pull them over for breaking the law. When you suspect they are impaired, having pulled them over for breaking the law, you test them. If they are impaired (and that could be from 10 hours ago) then you nail them to the full extent for the breaking the law while impaired.

Allegedly. I've gotten pulled over for a lot of things. In fact sobriety checkpoints are becoming more common all the time.

AjD wrote: Some are elated, others are afraid that all sorts of bad things are going to happen (more illegal pot everywhere, bad elements moving into town, high people driving cars into school yards, etc).

Huh. And here I am worrying that all the fun will go out of it. I'd miss skulking.

Skulking is oddly satisfying. But it starts to get old when you're over forty with kids.

AjD wrote:Towns aren't sure what the rules are, and are looking for guidance on how to proceed with allowing dispensaries, grow clubs, licensed caregivers who grow in their residences, etc.

I don't think there are any rules yet. They just passed the law requiring you to carry a card and then went on with things.

With a Republican governor (as the polls imply might happen come November), one can imagine the anti-cannabis interests using this new "disturbing law enforcement data" to game public opinion and roll back decriminalization. Or at least gain control of cannabis in a way that keeps the money in their hands (outlawing home growing; banishing care giver licenses; only selling "pharmaceutical" grown cannabis, from a licensed pharmacy; etc).

I believe that Rep. Rick Jones (who sponsored the roadside testing bill) is a smart man. So I have to believe he knows how flawed these tests are. And yet he's sponsoring this bill... The only conclusion I can come to is it's a political calculation, for the above reasons.

I think Michigan will be looking at a possible republican governor only because they finally woke up to how horrible Granholm was, not because they want a republican in office. Michiganders refusal to put DeVoss in office last time around pretty much showed that the modern conservative stereotype has no shot here no matter how bad you don't like the competition. Of course, I still don't understand how Posthumus lost to Granholm the first time around. I gave up hope that my fellow in state voters know anything that day. Actually I really gave completely the day they ran Archer out of Detroit (the pitchforks were pointy he even refused to run again) and then happily put Kwame in his stead.

noxiousdog wrote:

LordMortis wrote:

I can't speak for what the test is but as far as I'm concerned you don't pull someone over for driving drunk or high. You pull them over for breaking the law. When you suspect they are impaired, having pulled them over for breaking the law, you test them. If they are impaired (and that could be from 10 hours ago) then you nail them to the full extent for the breaking the law while impaired.

Allegedly. I've gotten pulled over for a lot of things. In fact sobriety checkpoints are becoming more common all the time.

Arbitrary asking for ze papers is something I am against down to the deepest part of my core. That we support it en mass is a sad statement on who we've become IMO. I want probable cause and I want it documented.

Strange bedfellows:

"I get stoned every day," she says through clouds of marijuana smoke.

De la Luz is a marijuana connoisseur for West Coast Cannabis and Skunk magazines, and TV's Cannabis Planet. She has a monthly column called "Getting High with Dragonfly," in which she reviews the latest flavors of ganja.

"My favorite strain these days has to be Dr. Walker's Daze," she says. "It's a pretty epic mood elevator. You're instantly happy, and you stay happy."

De la Luz says she was excited at first to hear California was trying to legalize pot. "I thought it was a dream come true," she says. "Then I read it and realized it was a nightmare."

She's now actively campaigning with her group "Stoners Against Prop 19." She says the initiative would create too many restrictions: Californians would be able to legally possess, process, share or transport only one ounce of pot. And they would be able to grow it only in a 25-square-foot area.
...
On the other side, Proposition 19 also has some unlikely allies; a group of former judges, prosecutors and cops are all for legalizing pot.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Strange bedfellows:

Interesting read. Pro-legalization interests have long maintained that current, black-market growers should enjoy favorable treatment under legalization as a reward for having provided a public service under hostile conditions; otherwise Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds come in and flood the market with homogeneous Bud Light. It seems that under Prop 19 the gourmet boutique market would be forced underground if most smokers settle for either homegrown ditchweed or bland corporate mass-market stuff...and black market sales will no longer be profitable enough to earn a decent living. The very growers who ought to benefit the most from legalization get screwed.

LawBeefaroni wrote:Strange bedfellows:

"I get stoned every day," she says through clouds of marijuana smoke.

De la Luz is a marijuana connoisseur for West Coast Cannabis and Skunk magazines, and TV's Cannabis Planet. She has a monthly column called "Getting High with Dragonfly," in which she reviews the latest flavors of ganja.

"My favorite strain these days has to be Dr. Walker's Daze," she says. "It's a pretty epic mood elevator. You're instantly happy, and you stay happy."

De la Luz says she was excited at first to hear California was trying to legalize pot. "I thought it was a dream come true," she says. "Then I read it and realized it was a nightmare."

She's now actively campaigning with her group "Stoners Against Prop 19." She says the initiative would create too many restrictions: Californians would be able to legally possess, process, share or transport only one ounce of pot. And they would be able to grow it only in a 25-square-foot area.
...
On the other side, Proposition 19 also has some unlikely allies; a group of former judges, prosecutors and cops are all for legalizing pot.

I get where she's coming from. It's the same foundation I had against health care reform and why I scoff at it now. The change in law is bogus compared to the change in law she wants. What I don't get is what's the downside for her? Does it make the pot she wants worse to buy and sell and grow or her more likely to get popped than she used to be? The downside I see for the current health care reform is the cost and that we called reform a victory. So what was supposed to reduce health care costs for all looks to me like it is going increase health care costs most and may or may not have an effect on the quality if health care provided. I don't get how things are going to get worse by not legalizing pot the way she wants it legalized.

Kraken wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:Strange bedfellows:

Interesting read. Pro-legalization interests have long maintained that current, black-market growers should enjoy favorable treatment under legalization as a reward for having provided a public service under hostile conditions; otherwise Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds come in and flood the market with homogeneous Bud Light. It seems that under Prop 19 the gourmet boutique market would be forced underground if most smokers settle for either homegrown ditchweed or bland corporate mass-market stuff...and black market sales will no longer be profitable enough to earn a decent living. The very growers who ought to benefit the most from legalization get screwed.

So people that broke the law for their own purposes should be rewarded as some sort of civil disobedient paragons? Sort of like all those mobster bootleggers during prohibition were rewarded when it was rescinded?

I guess maybe they need to re-task their marketing like microbrewers have to survive a new, open market. It's the same argument over mom and pop shops versus the encroachment of Walmart. The market doesn't care how entitled you feel and your moral superiority. Anyone that feels that they are indispensible is likely to get a rude awakening.

Isgrimnur wrote: I guess maybe they need to re-task their marketing like microbrewers have to survive a new, open market. It's the same argument over mom and pop shops versus the encroachment of Walmart. The market doesn't care how entitled you feel and your moral superiority. Anyone that feels that they are indispensible is likely to get a rude awakening.

It will be curious for sure. My initial inclination are the big corporate growers won't want to be associated with weed even if it is legal similiar to the way television networks (even HBO/Showtime) and publishers distance themselves from porn and liquor.

However, the regulation involved is certain to be a magnitude more burdensome than alcohol which only lately has allowed the small guy to get a foot hold.

LordMortis wrote:What I don't get is what's the downside for her? Does it make the pot she wants worse to buy and sell and grow or her more likely to get popped than she used to be?

She argues that restricting personal plots to 25 sq ft precludes boutique growers from being profitable, hence putting them out of business and depriving her of quality varieties (and her livelihood, if she's a reviewer). The market would be supplied by one licensed corporate grower rather than hundreds of entrepreneurs. It would be as if only Anheuser-Busch and home-brewers could make beer, with all of the microbrewers and brewpubs ruled illegal.

I wonder if the law prohibits individuals from banding together to combine their 25 sq ft plots. If a growers coop could get 100 people to sign over their individual plot rights, they'd be in business again. I'm going to guess that Prop 19 prohibits that.

PDF proposition text is here:

Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than 25 square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

Emphasis mine.

Kraken wrote:

LordMortis wrote:What I don't get is what's the downside for her? Does it make the pot she wants worse to buy and sell and grow or her more likely to get popped than she used to be?

She argues that restricting personal plots to 25 sq ft precludes boutique growers from being profitable, hence putting them out of business and depriving her of quality varieties (and her livelihood, if she's a reviewer). The market would be supplied by one licensed corporate grower rather than hundreds of entrepreneurs. It would be as if only Anheuser-Busch and home-brewers could make beer, with all of the microbrewers and brewpubs ruled illegal.

I wonder if the law prohibits individuals from banding together to combine their 25 sq ft plots. If a growers coop could get 100 people to sign over their individual plot rights, they'd be in business again. I'm going to guess that Prop 19 prohibits that.

So she is against it against not because it will make penalties worse for doing the way she does things now but because she figures there will be no profit in the way things are done so she's not going to get the dope she likes or would like to try because they will have to compete with legal growers. I don't find myself sympathetic to her cause but that's me.

LordMortis wrote:

Kraken wrote:

LordMortis wrote:What I don't get is what's the downside for her? Does it make the pot she wants worse to buy and sell and grow or her more likely to get popped than she used to be?

She argues that restricting personal plots to 25 sq ft precludes boutique growers from being profitable, hence putting them out of business and depriving her of quality varieties (and her livelihood, if she's a reviewer). The market would be supplied by one licensed corporate grower rather than hundreds of entrepreneurs. It would be as if only Anheuser-Busch and home-brewers could make beer, with all of the microbrewers and brewpubs ruled illegal.

I wonder if the law prohibits individuals from banding together to combine their 25 sq ft plots. If a growers coop could get 100 people to sign over their individual plot rights, they'd be in business again. I'm going to guess that Prop 19 prohibits that.

So she is against it against not because it will make penalties worse for doing the way she does things now but because she figures there will be no profit in the way things are done so she's not going to get the dope she likes or would like to try because they will have to compete with legal growers. I don't find myself sympathetic to her cause but that's me.

More simply, I think she's against it as a giveaway to Big Dope.

Weed does have as much flavor variation as beer and wine, and more subtleties of intoxication than alcohol. Restricting suppliers would make for a poorer marketplace. But she's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Legalize it first, overcome the struggle against heavy-handed feds, and then worry about the niceties.

Kraken wrote: Legalize it first, overcome the struggle against heavy-handed feds, and then worry about the niceties.

That's the right approach but by the time it gets to the niceties, the barrier for entry will be far too big.

You know "big dope" wants as much interference as possible to limit the ability of new entrants to make it to market.

Kraken wrote: But she's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Legalize it first, overcome the struggle against heavy-handed feds, and then worry about the niceties.

That we can agree on and I can empathize but it seems like sometimes I can get indignant where the good really seems contrary to the goal and this does not seem like one of those times to me. But what do I know?

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Kraken wrote: Legalize it first, overcome the struggle against heavy-handed feds, and then worry about the niceties.

That's the right approach but by the time it gets to the niceties, the barrier for entry will be far too big.

You know "big dope" wants as much interference as possible to limit the ability of new entrants to make it to market.

Well, we're in uncharted waters here. Maybe only a big corporation can withstand the federales' vow to enforce prohibition. Or maybe a decentralized web of small growers would be more resilient. I don't know.

I'm certainly sympathetic to the complaint. Those who've been growing and selling for years under hostile conditions ought to have a chance to prosper in the post-legalization world, and consumers would benefit from variety. This just seems like a sideshow in a much more momentous struggle. What are the odds that they'll get another, better-designed ballot proposal if Prop 19 goes up in smoke?

LawBeefaroni wrote:Strange bedfellows:

"I get stoned every day," she says through clouds of marijuana smoke.

De la Luz is a marijuana connoisseur for West Coast Cannabis and Skunk magazines, and TV's Cannabis Planet. She has a monthly column called "Getting High with Dragonfly," in which she reviews the latest flavors of ganja.

"My favorite strain these days has to be Dr. Walker's Daze," she says. "It's a pretty epic mood elevator. You're instantly happy, and you stay happy."

De la Luz says she was excited at first to hear California was trying to legalize pot. "I thought it was a dream come true," she says. "Then I read it and realized it was a nightmare."

She's now actively campaigning with her group "Stoners Against Prop 19." She says the initiative would create too many restrictions: Californians would be able to legally possess, process, share or transport only one ounce of pot. And they would be able to grow it only in a 25-square-foot area.
...
On the other side, Proposition 19 also has some unlikely allies; a group of former judges, prosecutors and cops are all for legalizing pot.

This woman is high! The only people who care about the boutique growers are the customers of the boutique growers, and that number is completely insignificant compared to the total number of marijuana users. To the average pot smoker their dope doesn't have fancy names like "Dr. Walker's Daze", "Bubblegum", or "Christmas Tree". To the average pot smoker their dope comes in one of a few varieties: green, brown, seedy, almost seedless, ditch weed, and good. Stoners certainly sit around in haze filled basements dreaming about getting their hands on a bag of hydro, and they might even speak highly of that one time that they were lucky enough to score this uber-weed. Average stoners don't give a damn if Prop 19 destroys the boutique weed communes of northern California because average stoners very rarely get the opportunity to purchase high end pot.

For a bit of perspective: a few weeks ago 100 tons of pot was seized in Tijuana head for the US.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=100+tons+of+pot -- yes, that a "let me google that for you". No snark implied; I just didn't want to choose the actual source for the cite.

That is one single ship, and its seizure will have a minimal effect on the supply of pot in this country. I think the boutique growers might be just as blind to the actual size of the pot market as are many of our policy makers.

Because of the recent harvest time murders (at least 3 different incidents of guys getting shot and killed by people protecting their legally growing medicinal weed) the County of Fresno has outlawed outdoor pot growing.

Imagine backyards all over the state with weed growing and the problems that will occur every harvest season by those who will "hand pick" their weed.....

Scuzz wrote:Because of the recent harvest time murders (at least 3 different incidents of guys getting shot and killed by people protecting their legally growing medicinal weed) the County of Fresno has outlawed outdoor pot growing.

Imagine backyards all over the state with weed growing and the problems that will occur every harvest season by those who will "hand pick" their weed.....

I would assume they'd be right there with homebrew and tobacco problems.

noxiousdog wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Because of the recent harvest time murders (at least 3 different incidents of guys getting shot and killed by people protecting their legally growing medicinal weed) the County of Fresno has outlawed outdoor pot growing.

Imagine backyards all over the state with weed growing and the problems that will occur every harvest season by those who will "hand pick" their weed.....

I would assume they'd be right there with homebrew and tobacco problems.

So when was the last time someone was shot for stealing beer out of someones garage...?

And murders occur every day over stolen cigs.........