Indoor marijuana production uses 1 percent of U.S. electricity, enough to produce the carbon emissions of three million cars. Meanwhile, the federal government is working hard to eradicate marijuana production from national forests. Reports suggest that such production is harmful to wildlife.
So how about a win-win solution? First, legalize marijuana at both the state and federal levels. Second, let the Forest Service pick some national forest locations where marijuana cultivation won’t harm wildlife or other values, then collect royalties on that cultivation, with 25 percent being kept by the Forest Service and the rest going to the federal treasury. Marijuana users win. Wildlife wins. The Forest Service and federal taxpayers win. The climate wins, or at least carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. Who could object to that?
ordering viagra without prescription http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/featured/page/17/ It actually covers a whole spectrum of problems. A ganglion was at the top part of the penis. viagra pfizer prix cialis cheap uk The person suffers from low self-esteem, lack of confidence and these sorts of tensions faced by impotent men only they are totally unaware about Penegra and other types of capsules. There are also some side effects to the medication, which will lowest price viagra not result in unpleasant side-effects.
Of course, marijuana doesn’t have to be grown on national forest lands. People grow it there for the same reason they grow it indoors: it’s illegal and they hope for some secrecy. This nation has a billion acres of agricultural lands, only 400 million of which are used for growing crops. When marijuana is completely legalized, most will be grown outdoors on private farms just like any other crop. So if you want to blame marijuana smokers for contributing to climate change, blame the prohibitionists instead.
You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand why some people with deep pockets would rather see marijuana remain illegal. The pharmaceutical industry rakes in billions on four major drugs…..painkillers, Blood pressure medication (and their “rising” side effects) and anti-depressants and therapy drugs…all of whose conditions can be partially alleviated through the use of marijuana. Pain, depression, anorexia, chemo therapy, stress relief.
“First, legalize marijuana at both the state and federal level…Who could object to that?”
Me.
Decriminalization is preferable to legalization. After ending the state monopoly on alcohol sales, Washington state voters put marijuana production and sales squarely under the auspices of the state liquor control board, which is currently colluding to maintain the monopolies granted to two alcohol distributors that have a 90% market share.
Taxing marijuana at 25% of each stage of production and distribution combined with arbitrary amount of licenses for growers and sellers and prohibition on individuals growing will keep the black market—including outdoor grow operations—alive and well.
What the marijuana industry needs is total decriminalization; the state has no business being in the pot business.
“Pain, depression, anorexia, chemo therapy, stress relief.”
Marijuana has been shown to exacerbate depression as well as to cause anxiety and panic attacks, including agoraphobia and depersonalization. While it provides medical benefits, it—like all medications and drugs—causes side effects.
The Antiplanner wrote:
So how about a win-win solution? First, legalize marijuana at both the state and federal levels. Second, let the Forest Service pick some national forest locations where marijuana cultivation won’t harm wildlife or other values, then collect royalties on that cultivation, with 25 percent being kept by the Forest Service and the rest going to the federal treasury. Marijuana users win. Wildlife wins. The Forest Service and federal taxpayers win. The climate wins, or at least carbon dioxide emissions are reduced. Who could object to that?
Frank wrote:
Taxing marijuana at 25% of each stage of production and distribution combined with arbitrary amount of licenses for growers and sellers and prohibition on individuals growing will keep the black market—including outdoor grow operations—alive and well.
First, for the record (again), I hate marihuana and its odor and the “culture” associated with same.
Second, I believe in legalization in spite of my own dislike of the stuff, as long as state motor vehicle laws are amended to treat driving while stoned in the same way that driving while under the influence is forbidden.
Now – as to Randal’s idea above. I think most of it is a good idea. Especially starting with legalization.
I could see his ideas becoming sound policy in some of the massive (by Eastern standards) U.S. Forest Service lands in West Virginia (hemp grows quite naturally in large parts of the Mountaineer State, though maybe not at some of the high elevations near and along the Allegheny Front Range and the parallel Eastern Continental Divide, much of which is part of the Monongahela National Forest).
West Virginia also has plenty of land that has been subject to “strip” mining for coal, and perhaps some of those lands might be appropriate for legalized marihuana growing operations?
But Frank is right – the numbers should not be fixed in law – perhaps they could be set on an annual basis, at least for the first decade?
And (admittedly this may be too much intervention in the marihuana market, but hear me out), much of West Virginia suffers from pervasive high unemployment and the misery that goes with same, so I would hope that legal marihuana cultivation on federal lands would lead to at least some legal employment opportunities for local residents.
If carbon dioxide is so bad, why do people who grow shit in greenhouses purposely pump more CO2 into their greenhouses, if you see advertisements in magazines, ironically “Mother Earth News” and such they sell units, burns propane or natural gas and uses extractors and pumps carbon into the house raising the CO2 concentration to as high as 1,000 parts per million or more. The environmentalists keep saying that higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere would have horrible consequences for agriculture because the plants are not suited to grow in these high concentrations. If that’s the case explain the crops, no different than the ones outside are growing bigger and faster. For several millennia after the end of the last Ice Age, Paleo-trees found buried in the tundra of North America and Europe indicated the climate was considerably warmer in order to permit the growth of trees in what is now frozen tundra. As much as twelve degree’s warmer than even now. What does that mean regarding sea ice in the Arctic? It was gone, completely in summer. Despite this total absence of ice, the polar bear survived, so did the walrus. Inuit culture flourished because they could farm for their sustenance. And human civilization radiated Northward and escaped the predators and tropical diseases that used to obliterate much of humankind.
In 1987 an experiment was performed by Dr. Sherwood Idso, orange trees were grown in two enclosures, one of which was open to and contained a standard atmosphere given the amount of CO2 the time the experiment was run (300-320 ppm). The other enclosure had twice the amount of carbon pumped into the enclosure (600 ppm). After several years, the growth of the orange trees and weight of the fruit harvested were closely monitored. There is no way to truly know how trees will respond to long-term atmospheric CO2 enrichment without actually doing a long-term experiment and the experiment runs even today. All and all, the enriched trees suffered no ill and produced 180% greater biomass than the tree’s grown in a standard atmosphere. We may need the benefit of CO2 enrichment in the future in order to feed future populations. And past civilizations benefited from additional temperature rise. Remember the English used to grow grapes…….in England and had a thriving wine industry that rivaled the French. Not anymore because it’s too chilly and too wet.
“CO2 is Life!!!!” performance art notwithstanding, around here not only did grow ops keep many warehouses from going under in 2008-2010, but are stressing supply now:
Anyhoo, I’m not sure growing in Mendocino will be able to supply the quality of weed that pot shops want, but it should meet demand of casual users, if they can figure out a way to get it that doesn’t involve guns.
DS
LazyReader wrote:
If carbon dioxide is so bad, why do people who grow shit in greenhouses purposely pump more CO2 into their greenhouses, if you see advertisements in magazines, ironically “Mother Earth News” and such they sell units, burns propane or natural gas and uses extractors and pumps carbon into the house raising the CO2 concentration to as high as 1,000 parts per million or more. The environmentalists keep saying that higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere would have horrible consequences for agriculture because the plants are not suited to grow in these high concentrations. If that’s the case explain the crops, no different than the ones outside are growing bigger and faster. For several millennia after the end of the last Ice Age, Paleo-trees found buried in the tundra of North America and Europe indicated the climate was considerably warmer in order to permit the growth of trees in what is now frozen tundra. As much as twelve degree’s warmer than even now. What does that mean regarding sea ice in the Arctic? It was gone, completely in summer. Despite this total absence of ice, the polar bear survived, so did the walrus. Inuit culture flourished because they could farm for their sustenance. And human civilization radiated Northward and escaped the predators and tropical diseases that used to obliterate much of humankind.
I am unqualified to speak to much of the above, and I won’t – except to suggest that it is a matter of scale. The amount of CO2 that could end up in the atmosphere from even a very large-scale greenhouse operation is tiny when compared to what comes from (for example) a coal-fired electric generating station.
In 1987 an experiment was performed by Dr. Sherwood Idso, orange trees were grown in two enclosures, one of which was open to and contained a standard atmosphere given the amount of CO2 the time the experiment was run (300-320 ppm). The other enclosure had twice the amount of carbon pumped into the enclosure (600 ppm). After several years, the growth of the orange trees and weight of the fruit harvested were closely monitored. There is no way to truly know how trees will respond to long-term atmospheric CO2 enrichment without actually doing a long-term experiment and the experiment runs even today. All and all, the enriched trees suffered no ill and produced 180% greater biomass than the tree’s grown in a standard atmosphere. We may need the benefit of CO2 enrichment in the future in order to feed future populations. And past civilizations benefited from additional temperature rise. Remember the English used to grow grapes…….in England and had a thriving wine industry that rivaled the French. Not anymore because it’s too chilly and too wet.
I feel personally that if we are going to curtail CO2 emissions, then we need to do it with technology (such as replacing coal-fired generation with nuclear; and through improved motor vehicles that emit less CO2 because they burn less fuel, or because they get their energy from other sources).
The idea of building a train line (as in California HSR) to reduce CO2 gas emissions strikes me as preposterous. for the promoters of the project do not bother to consider how much CO2 would be emitted during construction – nor has anyone really come clean with where the traction power will come from.
Dan wrote:
“CO2 is Life!!!!” performance art notwithstanding, around here not only did grow ops keep many warehouses from going under in 2008-2010, but are stressing supply now:
At least Colorado taxpayers are not wasting resources enforcing marihuana prohibition laws.
[quoted text snipped]
Anyhoo, I’m not sure growing in Mendocino will be able to supply the quality of weed that pot shops want, but it should meet demand of casual users, if they can figure out a way to get it that doesn’t involve guns.
Making the stuff legal should reduce the demand for firearms associated with marihuana growing – I think. As for the quality of the marihuana that might be grown, sorry, I cannot have an informed discussion about a subject I know nothing about.
To me all marihuana is filthy and vile stuff.
Hey, man: how do you enjoy your Pink Floyd records, man?
;o)
DS
“To me all marihuana is filthy and vile stuff.”
Not nearly as filthy and vile as tobacco smoke.
Frank wrote:
“To me all marihuana is filthy and vile stuff.”
Not nearly as filthy and vile as tobacco smoke.
I am not exactly fan of tobacco smoke either (I have never smoked). But I generally find marihuana smoke, with its greasy and sometimes “piney” stench, to be much much worse (exceptions for some stogie-type cigars and “full-strength” tobacco cigarets like Marlboro Reds which may stink more than most marihuana).
But I respect your opinions on this – and as far as I am concerned, you are free to avoid any or all of them. Or, in my fantasy world, enjoy them as you wish.
Frank wrote:
Not nearly as filthy and vile as tobacco smoke.
I am not exactly fan of tobacco smoke either (I have never smoked). But I generally find marihuana smoke, with its greasy and sometimes “piney” stench, to be much much worse (exceptions for some stogie-type cigars and “full-strength” tobacco cigarets like Marlboro Reds which may stink more than most marihuana).
But I respect your opinions on this – and as far as I am concerned, you are free to avoid any or all of them. Or, in my fantasy world, enjoy them as you wish.
Then you probably don’t like or haven’t experienced the scent of burning Artemisia tridentata, a sacred scent. Harvested some big sage near the northern slopes of Shasta before shipping out for an East Coast national park. Burned it in my beach shack, and a gung-ho greenhorn LE ranger was ready to cuff me—until I proved I was only burning sage and not cannabis.
Funny how burning a plant makes others want to incarcerate you.
Frank,
like all other cops, rangers are just looking for people to arrest and cite. In fact, because they are federal, sometimes they are worse than the local counterparts.
All drugs should be immediately decriminalized, the War on Drugs (TM) ended, and all those resources returned to tax victims, the pigs thrown back into productive private sector pursuits, and all drug sentences not involving real criminal behavior (like violence), immediately pardoned and wiped out.
“I believe in legalization…as long as state motor vehicle laws are amended to treat driving while stoned in the same way that driving while under the influence [of alcohol] is forbidden.”
Disagree entirely.
Studies show that heavy users of cannabis, including those for medical purposes, do not show anything close to the impairment of those driving under the influence of alcohol. (BTW, saw a guy drinking Rainier beer and driving yesterday; I’d just honked at him for failure to yield at a signed yield intersection.)
The test for driving under the influence of cannabis involves a blood test, which is completely unreliable:
I’ve friends who’ve driven stoned across Nevada’s loneliest highway listening to The Doors and Tom Petty. No problems. I’ve friends who commuted from the suburbs and reported that if they have a puff or two of cannabis and drive home, they are more cautious, drive less aggressively, and are more likely to obey traffic laws. Driving after two or three puffs, they report, is far less impairing that driving after two or three alcoholic beverages.
Also keep in mind that tobacco/nicotine is impairing, yet it is not treated as a DUI. One of the first times I tried cigarettes was while driving. Got so dizzy I had to pull over to puke and let someone else drive. The entire time I couldn’t believe it was legal to smoke cigarettes and drive.
MADD is running out of ways to punish people who have a second glass of wine with dinner. They will have to go after the MJ smokers or else have no reason for being, and that never happens among lobbyists.
It just amazes me how all the drunk driving incidents are .15+ BAL, yet MADD keeps wanting to reduce the legal limit and increase first time non-accident punishment. It is like gun control — punish the mostly law abiders because they are far easier to catch than the people who actually cause problems.