Home > Bonnie Neely, elections > Farmers support Neely for Supervisor

Farmers support Neely for Supervisor

[Vimeo=http://vimeo.com/15489177]

John LaBoyteaux:I’m supporting Bonnie Neely because I credit her experience in really understanding land use.

The future of our resource lands — our forests, our farm land — is going to be a really major issue in the General Plan Update.  There’s a big difference between professing that you’re going to protect farm land and understanding that you need to keep those lands in pieces that are big enough so that all different kinds of agriculture can make a living.

I’ve lived in Humboldt County for 30 years.  I’m a farmer and I’m definitely supporting Bonnie Neely.”

  1. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 12:05 am

    So one farmer, and it is automatically farmers?

  2. Ponder z
    October 19, 2010 at 5:07 am

    you are a berry farmer? pot farmer? terry farmer?

  3. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 6:23 am

    The video showed his crop. It looks like a truck farm. A quick google reveals he is the owner of Grant Camp Ranch in Red Crest, employs 5 people and has an estimated annual revenue of $310,000.

  4. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 6:57 am

    that doesn’t make him plural.

  5. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 7:04 am

    So one farmer, and it is automatically farmers?

    It’s just Heraldo ratcheting up the rhetoric. You have to remember, these posts aren’t for you. They are for voters to find when they google a candidate’s name. The average voter isn’t going to read a full discussion thread to discover what’s wrong with the post. Half of these voters won’t even click through; they’ll just read the link title and believe it.

    This is campaigning in the 21st century… sneaky and underhanded. Honesty goes by the wayside.

  6. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Neely has the endorsement of Humboldt Growers Association which is certainly more than one farmer so there is nothing sneaky or underhanded about saying farmers support Neely, it’s fact.

  7. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 19, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Ummmm, farming is allowed on all types of sizes of land AND SHALL CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED; OR, farmers will just farm anyway regardless of a lack of large, over-valued tracts of land. Farming fails once you restrict it. To not mention the need for smaller parcels to farm is a disingenuous slant toward the elites in society while again spitting on the up and comers trying to make their dreams and desires turn into opportunities that render prosperity.

    Remember the Humboldt County Prosperity Plan???? This thread is highlighted by a blog “write-up” which fails to recognize the local Propsperity Plan for all.

    Since Neely really is not about “ALL” AND NEVER HAS BEEN, I can’t agree with Mr. Laboyteaux. The proof is all over the community in many forms, partly covered-up by tax dollars ran through county counsel.

    Besides, Neely’s ovaries are not nig enough for the responsibility of Respondet Superior. If they were, she would have taken this election by a landslide. Yet, alas, after years and years of political abuses, Neely will be no longer a supervisor IF Leonard voters predominantly go t Virginia’s camp.

    Neely still has the Coastal Commission though; and, I believe she will do our area better than if this area had not a representative acting as Board Chair of the Coastal Commission.

    Good Luck to ALL the farmers over the next 4 years!

    Actually, Mr. Laboyteaux, the current cast of supervisors don’t really understand or know the Humboldt County Code – for if they truly did, we, as a community, would not be having this thread to discuss~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!.

    Bigger is not better.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  8. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:36 am

    A sneaky and underhanded person saying another sneaky and underhanded person isn’t sneaky and underhanded, well, that’s just so convincing.

  9. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 8:43 am

    As I stated, Neely was endorsed by the Humboldt Growers who are farmers so claiming the use of the plural farmers is sneaky and underhanded is obviously nothing but a smear, 8:36, as is calling me sneaky and underhanded for stating a documented fact. It’s called ad hominem fallacy which is by definition a sneaky and underhanded way to debate.

  10. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:52 am

    But Bonnie, you don’t debate anyhow.

  11. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Just to be clear, as was discussed on another thread, the Humboldt Growers’ Association is a cannabis growers’ group that advocates outdoor organic growing.

    The local farmers’ group that organizes the Farmer’s Market in Arcata and other locations is the North Coast Growers’ Association.

  12. Goldie
    October 19, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Neely has the support of Redwood Roots Farm. They supported her by holding a fund raising event for her. I can not imagine that farmers feel that Virginia understands the concerns or needs of the farmers or the importance of maintaining and growing our local food sources.

  13. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:55 am

    No Jane, it’s a simple way of saying that, over the sum of your posts, I’ve come to believe you are a dishonest ideologue.

  14. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 8:57 am

    Which is an ad hominem attack, 8:55. Anonymous leg humpers, like you, are just a waste of time and add nothing to any discussion they intrude upon.

  15. the reasonable anonymous
  16. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Both organizations are made up of farmers, TRA, regardless if they grow edible crops or smokeable crops.

  17. anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:01 am

    JL you’re failing your challenge

  18. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:01 am

    For info about the North Coast Growers’ Association, see:

    http://www.humfarm.org/

  19. Potme
    October 19, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Well, we know for sure from her campaign contributions that Bonnie is supported by the pot farmers! And Casino gambling money. Shameless.

  20. Goldie
    October 19, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Our county is supported by the pot growers and the casinos. The marijuana industry is our number one source of income in this county.

  21. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:04 am

    “Both organizations are made up of farmers, TRA, regardless if they grow edible crops or smokeable crops.”

    No argument there. And personally I think an endorsement from either one of those groups is positive. I just wanted to clarify which one of the groups is endorsing Neeley, because the names of the two groups are so similar, and people might easily mistake one for the other.

  22. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Don’t be such a puritan hypocrite, Potme. Virtually every business in Humboldt County depends on pot money to survive, including the developers who are opposing Neely with their big contributions. The same is true for casino gambling money. They provide jobs and donate money to charitable organizations and their money circulates through the economy just like any other business.

  23. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:06 am

    True, Goldie, and I have yet to see a sign at a single local business that says “we don’t want your pot money.”

  24. Goldie
    October 19, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Our local organic farmers and dairy people provide food products and jobs and are part of the joy of living in Humboldt. They increase our quality of health and life while adding greatly to the branding of Humboldt.
    Bass understands development and will see to the needs of that gang. I do not feel she has the best interest of the entire community or our best possible future in mind.

  25. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:30 am

    I have go say, I have seen a lot of Bass, Sundberg, and Rodoni signs on barns and in front of farms, as well as some for Neeley and Cleary. It seems that Humboldt farmers (of all sorts) are split on who they are supporting in this election. But I guess a headline that said “SOME farmers support Neeley for supervisor” wouldn’t pack very much punch.

  26. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Quit being so reasonable!!!!!

  27. High Finance
    October 19, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Yes Plain Jane, you are right again. The pot grower’s association has indeed endorsed Bonnie Neely.

    Why hasn’t Neely featured that endorsement in her advertising Jane? In fact, why hasn’t the Times Standard or NCJ revealed the fact that thousands of dollars of her contributions come from the drug dealers?

  28. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 10:29 am

    She said it clearly in the debate and it has been reported several times in the news, HiFi. While I can understand you not comprehending what you read in the newspaper, surely you watched the debates where she said she had received their endorsement?

  29. High Finance
    October 19, 2010 at 10:31 am

    No I did not see their debate. I do not recall anywhere in the paper that she thanks pot growers for their support.

  30. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 10:37 am

    She thanked the organization for their support since that is who endorsed her. You, of course, think if people knew she received pot money they would vote for Bass. Do you have a sign up on your business “pot money not welcome?” If not, you donate pot money to candidates as well.

  31. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 10:40 am

    In fact, unless you don’t accept business from pot growers or people who accept business from pot growers, you are supporting your family on pot money, HiFi. I know I am supported, in part, by pot money as is everyone in Humboldt County. Stop being such a hypocrite.

  32. High Finance
    October 19, 2010 at 11:48 am

    “She thanked the ORGANIZATION for their support”. There is not one person out of twenty who know they are an organization of pot growers & dealers.

    And yes, Bonnie would lose lots of votes if it became well known that she is getting tens of thousands of dollars from those people and Bonnie damn well knows it.

    And no, I do not take money from dope dealers. Just because you have no standards doesn’t mean most people have none.

  33. Harold h. Greene
    October 19, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    Just driving through this area benefits the marijuana prohibition trade.

    That’s why intrade has prop. 19 at 60 percent. Marijuana prohibition simply is not sustainable. It makes more sense to make it legal.

  34. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    You are so ignorant, HiFi. Everyone in every business makes money from pot growers, and meth dealers too. They spend their profits in our businesses and from there it spirals out through the community, circulating over and over through everyone’s business. From the grocery store to the insurance office, to health care, to pharmacies, housing, accountants, lawyers, taxes, etc. I dare you to name a single business that doesn’t derive profit from pot growing directly or indirectly.

  35. Plain Jane
    October 19, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Any one have the latest estimates on how much pot growing adds to the local economy? And of course there is the sales tax they pay when they spend that money and the property taxes they pay on their pot growing land.

  36. A-Nony-Mouse
    October 19, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    HiFi, where do you get this “tens of thousands of dollars” number from? The growers made a contribution as did I and many other Humboldt County residents. That doesn’t make Bonnie indebted to us. If it did, then Virginia is in real trouble with all the developers she has in her lineup. By your logic, in a few years we’d be nothing BUT developments from here to the border.
    Anon 7:04 the definition of underhanded is on the flyers sent out by Virginia, Brady, and Newman, all trying to pose as Democrats and pretending they have the Dems endorsement (a lie). Brady went so far as to claim Larry had sued Security National over the Marina Center (another lie). This is absolutely untrue. Larry has no part in any of the lawsuits.
    Brady is trying to wrap herself in the Balloon Track cleanup but she had absolutely NOTHING to do with it beyond a 3 minute diatribe at a council meeting (yet another lie). She spent most of that time insulting various councilpersons.
    If this is qualified, then I’m ready to be KING.

  37. Goldie
    October 19, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    The TS seems to have the habit of omitting Bonnie’s name from stories. She was involved in helping to bring in the 9.8 million for the Open Door project and yet the TS only mentioned Mike Thompson. The NCJ Blog thing included her. http://www.northcoastjournal.com/blogthing/2010/10/12/thompson-lands-98m-open-door-clinic/
    In the TS article “Pot growers introduce draft ordinance” They do say that Bonnie sponsored the event but fail to mention who else attended. Chief Neilson, Patrick Clery, Paul Gallegos, Patty Berg, the HSU police department, representatives from Public Health, Environmental Health, Economic Development.
    Should Prop 19 pass the county will have to set the guide lines. Forward thinking folks are coming together now to discuss this and have the
    ‘mature’ conversation Bass speaks of but Bass is not there.

  38. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    “Any one have the latest estimates on how much pot growing adds to the local economy?” Good question!
    We hear lot of anecdotal statements: “The marijuana industry is our number one source of income in this county.” without knowing the actual facts.

    It seems to me that county, state, fed govt is the biggest source of income. Consider HSU, CR, CalTrans, Hum Co agencies, Coast Guard, NWS, USFS, BLM, etc. etc. The monthly payroll at HSU and CR alone is in the millions. Add to that all of the govt funded construction and purchases.

    For example (from Impact of HSU on Humboldt Econmy – 2004): “Total expenditures for FY 02-03 by Humboldt State University (HSU) total $92 million. …the sum of direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of HSU on the County economy is $196.5 million.” That’s over 16 million a month (at a rate calculated 7-8 years ago). Is there really that much pot produced and sold each month?

    I don’t deny pot is a part of our economy, but it seems a bit overstated in many of these discussions.

  39. High Finance
    October 19, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    You are right Annon 2pm government payments dwarf number 2. Not just HSU, C/R & the others you mentioned but the county government, all the school districts, Social Security benefits and veterans benefits.

    Liberals & pot proponents always make the grossly exaggerated claim that pot is number one but they have no facts or proof to back up their claims. Nobody can name a rich pot grower, just a bunch of small time losers.

  40. Funnygirl
    October 19, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    So if we endorse the illegal drug trade and cheer for the gambling industry, why are we that mucho differente from sur de la border? Not where I want to see this area go.

  41. humboldturtle
    October 19, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    Not endorse, TAX. It’s hundreds of millions. Silly.

  42. Funnygirl
    October 19, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    Or we can get bribes from Mexican cartels. Who cares where the money comes from, its money, honey. This crop doesn’t really produce a positive in most people’s lives, yet it is being touted as the savior of the economy. It is just a silly drug that probaly fucks up more lives than it helps.

  43. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    “Why hasn’t Neely featured that endorsement in her advertising Jane? In fact, why hasn’t the Times Standard or NCJ revealed the fact that thousands of dollars of her contributions come from the drug dealers?”

    Wasn’t Virgina a drug dealer working directly for drug companies?

  44. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    “I don’t deny pot is a part of our economy, but it seems a bit overstated in many of these discussions.”

    Last economic estimates were 300 – 500 million a year, based on the discrepancy of taxed pay versus spending in Humboldt County. Ask Harvey Harper how many trucks they sell for cash. Ask Renner petroleum how many gallons of diesel they sell every month?

  45. Anon
    October 19, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    RA, many of the pastures you see with Sundberg signs are not farms–they are farmland owned by developers like Furtado, and are slated for development. That’s why in McK we call people like Sundberg the vacant lot candidates.

  46. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    IMO pot has taken more out of this community in lost taxes, police and service costs, crime and damages to property, and violence, fear… The amount it has “given” us has not made up for that. Net=loss

  47. October 19, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    Those are problems caused by prohibition.

  48. Funnygirl
    October 19, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    So if legalized then indoor grows will no longer burn down some rental houses, bad folks won’t do home invasions, etc. You are dreaming. This is funny peculiar or maybe funny looking.

  49. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    Perspective please. Rural America is poor. We are a rare spot of prosperity in that. If you think we have “lost taxes, police and service costs, crime and damages to property, and violence, fear” here, maybe you should try living in rural anywhere else.

  50. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    are slated for development.

    you can’t develop farmland.

  51. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Funnygirl,

    If legalized, prices will fall, the need to hide the grows will disappear, and commercial indoor growing in rentals (or any other residences) will not be able to compete with larger-scale outdoor, greenhouse, or large-scale indoor in a warehouse-type space. So, yes, legalization will soon bring an end to fires and home invasions connected to residential grow scenes.

  52. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    “Last economic estimates were 300 – 500 million a year, based on the discrepancy of taxed pay versus spending in Humboldt County.”

    This is poor analysis. How many dollars were spent by people who earn their money outside the area (and pay income tax there)? Students and tourists bring in a lot of money that does not show up as local income tax. There are other sources as well – people who do not pay income tax here, but spend much of their time and money in Hum Co. $300-500 million? Is this income, sales, or what? Are you saying there is 41 million a month generated by pot? Maybe one month, but every month? Is this being trucked out of the area or shipped by boat?
    I stand by my initial point that pot is part of the economy, but there is no credible data to suggest it is the number one source of local revenue.

  53. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    I thought I already posted this:

    http://yeson19.com/endorse/lawprofessors/text

  54. The Monitor
    October 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    You would think hifi was smoking home grown to come up with the statements he utters. Ten of thousands into Bonnie’s coffers? How would he know that unless he is on the inside when it comes to growing. Her list of contributors didn’t sound like pot growers to me. Hifi must have inhaled. Why doesn’t he write a letter to the editor on that one and sign his name to it. I can hardly wait for that one. Roll that boy another, and maybe he will come up with a real idea. However there is no ‘there’ there with this guy.

  55. Not A Native
    October 19, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    Well RA I’ll defer to your undoubtedly better understanding of the present economics of indoor growing than I have.

    But if pot becomes legal per prop 19 there will still be incentive for illegal indoor grows to avoid taxation, regulation, labor costs, etc. Same economic incentive that exists for moonshine whiskey.

    It all depends on the costs and prices. And according to the ‘pot culture’ claimants(who I doubt), there is demand for ’boutique’ pot at premium prices. If true, it will create larger illegal grow incentives. And there will be true ‘hobbyists’ who use the prop 19 provision to grow at home unprofitably. So I think we should expect some home fires and invasions will still occur. No one really knows.

  56. The Monitor
    October 19, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    There will still be a big export business to all the states that didn’t have a prop 19 to vote on. It will be impossible to tax our exports.

  57. Not A Native
    October 19, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Monitor, guess you’ve tagged HiFi as a pot user from knowing that people who use pot develop and believe fantasy thoughts that result in having irrational and incorrect ideas. And those wrong ideas persist after they stop. And using more pot will generate new fantasy ideas. Sounds to me like you’re saying they become dumb. No argument here.

  58. the reasonable anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    “Same economic incentive that exists for moonshine whiskey.”

    We’re not exactly overrun with illegal moonshine operations, are we?

  59. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    I was reading the list of Bonnie’s contributors in one of the newspapers and there were many from Garberville and southern Humboldt. I have to agree with Hi Fi on this one.

  60. Not A Native
    October 19, 2010 at 10:46 pm

    Monitor, I assume you mean exports at black market prices.

    The ‘other’ word for exports is trafficking. Exports is the issue that has drawn the attention of the US Attorney General and will easily stop any attempt to implement prop. 19(and will increase opposition to it in Nov.).

    If you really support prop 19 you’d do everything you can to develop credible controls against exports. if you truly support exports you don’t take prop 19 seriously and just prefer the status quo.

  61. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Agree in what way?

  62. Not A Native
    October 19, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    RA My point was that legalization alone doesn’t stop illicit production. Your distortion of literally equating moonshine with pot is ridiculous and hardly reasonable.

    As I wrote, its all about the economics, which I guess you know very well, for pot. Moonshine economics and post prop 19 illegal indoor(and outdoor) pot economics are completely independent of each other. You gotta do the math.

  63. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    there’s no math, only estimates. is all this trouble really worth it for a drug? sad!

  64. Anonymous
    October 19, 2010 at 11:42 pm

    You should ask Napa County the same question.

  65. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 8:28 am

    I see what you’re getting at, NAN. Prop 19 isn’t really full legalization in that it doesn’t include the federal level, therefore a black market (“export” to other states) will continue. I agree.

    Full legalization, including the federal level, WILL end virtually all black market trading, aside from the relatively small incentive that would remain to avoid taxes (just as with black market cigarettes, moonshine, etc.) My best guess is that federal legalization is probably 10 years away.

  66. longwind
    October 20, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Both the pot regulation proposals before the Supes cut the Gordian knot of exports by simply taxing production at the source. Guess what, problem solved.

    Humboldt County doesn’t have to create a federal drug policy. NAN’s fantasies of a rational world, as usual, don’t apply to this one. Our county needs sensible policies for regulating its economic base, and we’re finally working and talking together to create them. Well done, Supes!

  67. Anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 9:07 am

    The feds will not allow taxation of a product they deem illegal. They won’t be able to stop small consumers and producers, but they can easily shut down a county trying to collect tax on an illegal product. Get past the fantasy – prop 19 will not result in a large tax revenue for Hum Co. I agree with RA – federal legalization is the only way to accomplish that. I will likely vote for 19 anyway, but I’m realistic about the results – which will not be much (at least initially).

  68. High Finance
    October 20, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Monitor, check out the Mirror’s website for a partial list of the businesses & individuals from Garberville & Redway that have donated to Bonnie.

    Then you & Not a Native can go back to denying the obvious again.

  69. Not A Native
    October 20, 2010 at 9:25 am

    No RA you don’t understand my post. This thread is about what might happen if prop 19 passes. I beleive a black market within California may continu if the economics of inefficient illicit growing out weigh the economics of efficient legal growing that includes taxes, regulation, other legal costs, etc. If so, the fires and invasions will continue.

    The ‘export’ or trafficking issue is completely different. Thats where the Federal law conflict is severe because interstate commerce is directly invlved. If there’s a real channel for inexpensive legal California pot to be exported, prop 19 won’t be implemented at all. Personally, I support prop 19 and believe anyone who supports ‘exporting’ is really choosing criminality to make profits and will kill prop 19.

    Of course, with or without prop 19 there will be incentive for illegal growing to ‘export’. But right now, illegally growing for the 215 market is less risky than illegal exporting while the profits are the same.

  70. Plain Jane
    October 20, 2010 at 9:28 am

    HILARIOUS that HiFi is recommending the cracked Mirror for facts when he has claimed REPEATEDLY that he doesn’t read it. HA-HA-HA!

  71. Anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Hi Fi – are people from So Hum lesser citizens then those that are giving money to Virgina from the 5th or the 3rd districts? What are you saying?

  72. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    NAN,

    Thanks for taking the time to explain. I agree that there is a risk that even with Prop 19, a sizeable intra-California black market might remain. I think the risk will be greater if the levels of taxation are too high and regulations too restrictive.

  73. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 9:59 am

    “The feds will not allow taxation of a product they deem illegal.”

    They do right now, with medical cannabis. That’s not to say that they’ll take the same approach with recreational cannabis, but it does show that they CAN look the other way and allow local communities to tax a product, despite that product still being illegal at the federal level.

    But there’s another problem: Growers may be afraid to go ahead and get a county license to grow cannabis and pay county cannabis taxes, when doing so will create documentation of the fact that they are breaking federal law. Even if the feds don’t come after the county and/or state, they could subpoena those documents and use those as the basis of federal prosecutions of the growers, middlemen, and sellers.

    The truth is, it’s not entirely clear what will actually happen if Prop 19 passes:

    Will Congress change federal law to allow states to go their own way, in part so that the Federal government can share in the taxation? (Seems unlikely.)

    Will the feds come down hard on the state, or counties, or growers or sellers, or all four? Given their limited resources, will the Feds be able to have much effect? Will more federal resources become available to fight Prop 19 cultivatioin and sales? (Also seems pretty unlikely)

    Will the feds target a relative handful of the largest private cultivators, wholesalers and retailers so that they can be seen as “doing something” while at the same time ignoring the collection of taxes by counties and/or municipalities in the state of CA? (This seems most likely to me.)

    Despite the uncertainty, I hope Prop 19 passes because, among other benefits, it will force these and other issues to the forefront.

  74. longwind
    October 20, 2010 at 10:13 am

    What ‘risk?’ That what’s gone on for the last 40 years will continue to go on? Of course it will. Therefore we don’t change anything?

    The feds will have opportunities galore to pretend to do what they can’t do, just like after 215 passed. Remember? Huffing, puffing, posing and progress in one long, continuous historic wheeze still contradicting itself today.

    NAN, you’re thinking just like our black market drug dealers do, which is refreshing, but not very enlightened. Humboldt County’s thousands of petty producers aren’t worthwhile federal targets, in case you haven’t noticed.

    Every effort to tax, regulate and normalize the economic base of the North Coast will reduce, not increase, federal leverage against reality. I think the Supes have come to that conclusion too.

  75. huufc
    October 20, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Didn’t the California Coastal Commission extort a few million dollars from the taxpayers through CALTRANS for the Alton interchange for the little farm out there?

  76. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    Longwind,

    I’d be curious to see your response to this part of my last comment: “Growers may be afraid to go ahead and get a county license to grow cannabis and pay county cannabis taxes, when doing so will create documentation of the fact that they are breaking federal law. Even if the feds don’t come after the county and/or state, they could subpoena those documents and use those as the basis of federal prosecutions of the growers, middlemen, and sellers.”

    While the feds don’t have the resources to go out and bust all the small and medium-sized growers in Humboldt, prove that their crops were non-medical, etc., the issue is whether the documentation created by a legal-only-in-California tax and regulation regime will make it temptingly easy to prosecute those who sign on the dotted line, essentially admitting to breaking federal laws on cultivation and sales.

    Please note: I’m NOT opposed to Prop 19…I just wonder how this is all going to shake out.

  77. Reality Check
    October 20, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Has Bonnie ever denied taking money for her campaign from the growing community?
    No
    Quit your whining! You are starting to sound like Virginia! You poor victims!

  78. longwind
    October 20, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    It’s one more good question, tra. My bet would be the govt would go after big-money big city boys with easy assets to seize, like they always have, rather than against people who grow pot the way rural people have always scraped along, doing a bunch of things that add up to a living.

    It’s easy to attack such people now, but they’re not really attacked except in ‘Shock and Awe’ shows like the county puts on as well. Which don’t make much of an impression, and I don’t believe they’d be ratcheted up, because that stuff has failed so many times before too.

    But who knows?

  79. longwind
    October 20, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    ps, I see some people still don’t grasp how pot compares to our other economic engines. This article below calculates that Humboldt’s urban indoor pot alone is worth $300 million a year, based on how much extraneous electricity Humboldt has started sucking. That would be about a quarter of the county’s total pot production. Multiply that by 2.5 for its economic impact, clearly in the billions of dollars.

    HSU’s $96 million looks pretty good next to timber’s $43 million annual turnover, but it’s not an economic base outside of town. Have a read, doubters:

    http://hummap.org/2010/07/30/the-elephant-in-the-grow-room/

  80. Not A Native
    October 20, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    RA, the sincere opposition to 19 echos your(and my) wonderment and concludes prop 19 is a bad idea because there are too many unknowns and too many ways for conflicts to arise. I agree thats all true.

    But being in favor of 19 means hoping that pot producers who obtain licenses will really desire to become legal and will accept(and even propose) restrictions on their trading and profits to keep low priced legal pot from being diverted to the black market.

    I can be really wrong here but I’ll make a big guess and predict that if 19 passes some jurisdiction will simply adopt regulations. The Feds will immediately review it for holes that allow legally produced pot to be diverted to the black market.

    If the Feds find weaknesses they believe are serious(and they probably will), they’ll allow a trial period where they’ll gather evidence of diversion and then threaten to prosecute all authorized growers/retailers, and follow up on that. If that happens, no other jurisdiction will pass regulations and prop 19 will fail to create a legal pot market in CA.

    The best outcome of prop 19 passing would be the CA. legislature seriously taking up the task of crafting statewide regs that the Feds can find acceptable. I believe there are ways it could be done.

  81. Not A Native
    October 20, 2010 at 6:41 pm

    Actually the electricity consumption in HumCo is now just about what it was in 2000 while the population is up by about 6%. HumCo electricity use has been very volatile since 2000. And there are many factors to explain it besides pot such as industrial use, energy saving technology, and substitution of natural gas. Maybe diesel consumption has gone way up, I dunno but there are other factors for that too.

    If you want to see a graph of HumCo electricity use since 1993, look at the current HSU economic index report. It has other interesting information about the local economy. One thing is that retail sales have gone up by 28% over the last ten years, but that calculates to be a 2.5% annual rate, about the rate of inflation so its likely attributable to changes in prices.

  82. Mr. Nice
    October 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    While the feds don’t have the resources to go out and bust all the small and medium-sized growers in Humboldt, prove that their crops were non-medical, etc., the issue is whether the documentation created by a legal-only-in-California tax and regulation regime will make it temptingly easy to prosecute those who sign on the dotted line, essentially admitting to breaking federal laws on cultivation and sales.

    The federal tax thing is all pat-on-the-back DEA puffed up bullshit.

    There is no IRS Business Activity Code for pitching weed.

    Some folks file “Botanical Drugs and Herbs Merchant Wholesalers” or “Flower, Nursery Stock, & Florists’ Supplies.” How does the IRS know the botanical drugs or nursery stock you sold was weed? They don’t know now in the case of medical marijuana.

    Cities/counties would be collecting taxes/fees. The Federal government can’t just bust in and request all the tax records.

  83. Not A Native
    October 20, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    FWIW Mr. Nice, its not about tax collection its about having a permit to engage in a particular kind of business that’s regulated.

    Think of hair stylists, doctors, and professional engineers. Because they’re regulated, its trivial to locate and investigate anyone legally permitted to engage in those occupations. Prop 19 would just allow adding pot grower to that list.

    BTW, the IRS has all the tax records and they cooperate with the DEA in investigations.

  84. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    “The federal government can’t just bust in and request all the tax records.”

    I dunno. I expect they could go to a federal judge and get a warrant, based on the fact that permit applications for growing cannabis plus tax records indicating what was grown or sold, would be considered pretty straightforward evidence of a federal crime. Would they actually do that? Again, I dunno.

  85. the reasonable anonymous
    October 20, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    However the commercial regulation/taxation side of things shakes out, the best outcome of Prop 19 passing will be that anyone over 21 will be allowed under state law to grow a few plants of their own. There’s really nothing the Feds can do about that.

  86. Mr. Nice
    October 20, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    The feds don’t have enough labor hours to go and investigate every pot seller. People sell all types of gray market shit all the time and pay taxes without explicitly telling the federal government they sell counterfeit goods, pseudo-legal drugs not for novelty use. It’d be no different with CA legal weed. The paper trail would not trace back to the IRS unless they sent in agents to hundreds of little collection points, officially requested records on specific people, opened investigations, built cases, and audited/prosecuted all these people.

    Remember the 400 fucking FBI agents, their multi-year investigation, and the subsequent raids? They got jack for all that. They made requests for all the paper trail on the people they popped. A huge fucking production and didn’t even haul as much weed as the HCSO and the DTF pull in a good week doing raids.

    The feds know they can’t attack it top down. They don’t want Prop. 19 because they know it would fuck their shit up. If they really thought it made no difference and they could find everybody easily, they wouldn’t make such a big deal out of why CA shouldn’t vote for it. They promised the same raids and shit with 215 yet there are pot stores in most Cali metro areas. When Bush was prez and Lungren AG, the fed would bust up a shop just to have three new ones open up next month. The more a city fought weed stores, the more opened up.

    The DOJ put out that map of San Francisco and all the pot dispensaries (many of which didn’t exist) as anti-pot propaganda. If they knew all the addresses and shit, why not just bust them instead of talking shit?

  87. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 8:10 am

    anonymous @ 9:01 am says, “I am failing my challenge.”

    I ask back, “what challenge are you inventing?”

    JL

  88. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 8:24 am

    Goldie @ 9:04 am,

    You say, “the casinos support this county.”. (referencing mj too as the two industries implied to keep this county afloat)

    I say, “I disagree with the casino part.”

    All casinos do is tend to take a communities money and transfer bits and pieces of it around to its patrons while the uppidy ups who run the show for that business model rake in bank. Casinos are just a policy loophole for State and local government to circumvent its own rules in order to collect taxes and royalties. This is why more people on the inside from both native american and non-native american groups, organizations, political structures, etc. are claiming how successful the relationships can be between separate, autonomous governments. It really is about power, control and tax dollars.

    Not to say that casinos don’t offer enjoyment….because they do. I certainly don’t mind people losing money gambling if they so choose. Yet, to imply that Casinos are right there with the mj trade as keeping this county running is a slant given that is not credible.

    The real test is to see how this county is when enough public employees lose their subsidized jobs. This will show what is really running this county, imo, barring some miracle that higher paying private sector jobs all-of-a-sudden.

    JL

  89. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 8:26 am

    “all-of-a-sudden appear”.

    Typo, oops.

    JL

  90. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 8:34 am

    To put gambling into perspective, if people want to waste their money gambling at least it does less environmental damage than conspicuous consumption of foreign made crap which uses resources to make and energy to ship and then ends up in landfills and gambling surely must contribute more to the local economy with wages, prizes, taxes, local purchasing and the profits to the tribes which also recirculate.

  91. High Finance
    October 21, 2010 at 9:35 am

    The casinos take money away from dumb people who actually think they are going to win more than they lose. Casinos around here prey primarily upon the poor & lower middle class. Those people spend money on gambling rather than on their families, food, clothes, shelter & their children’s college funds.

    The indian tribes hire companies located out of the area to manage the casinos. Those companies take those profits out of the area. Didn’t you guys preach endlessly that was a bad thing?

    So Bonnie takes endorsements & money from pot growers & dealers who hurt people. She also takes endorsements & tons of money from the casinos who prey upon the poor & middle class.

    Has she no shame at all?

  92. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Neither the casinos nor pot growers prey on anyone. They offer a product that many people want to buy. Labeling the profits from a legal endeavor as shameful is hypocritical since, as pointed out previously, well all make profit from these “shameful” activities regardless our profession. Is the mall preying on people when they spend more than they can afford? What about fast food? Is a restaurant owner shameful for accepting patronage from obese people?

  93. The Monitor
    October 21, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Actually, the casinos bring in an outside management team to get started and to train locals in the operation. Blues lake has a hotel that brings in groups who spend lots of money locally, other than gambling. i.e. About two hundred up scale Harley riders were booked just recently. I know people that enjoy going to the casino to eat but don’t gamble. Some do but none are taking food out of their families mouths. HIFI grossly over simplifies things. It is hard to take him seriously.

  94. High Finance
    October 21, 2010 at 11:02 am

    They prey upon the weak & stupid Jane. They convince them they have a product they want or need & then they give it to them. The poor & lower middle class would be far better off spending that money on things they really need.

    Have you no compassion for them Jane? Or is it just tough luck for them?

  95. tra
    October 21, 2010 at 11:06 am

    Some folks do get addicted to gambling, and end up spending money they can’t afford to. So in that sense there is a social cost to it, though for most people, the casinos are just another form of entertainment.

    Personally I don’t see the attraction to casino gambling. No matter how glitzy the ambiance, I just can’t get excited about playing games with real money where the odds of losing are so impressive. I guess it’s part thrill-seekers and part folks who don’t understand how much the odds are stacked against them?

    At any rate, I’d classify casinos as “mostly harmless,” (which by the way is the same as the two-word description of the Planet Earth in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) but I’m not convinced that they are of any substantial benefit to humanity. Economically, money is moved around, but nothing is really created, other than some rather expensive entertainment for those who like to play games with their money.

  96. tra
    October 21, 2010 at 11:10 am

    “They prey upon the weak and stupid.”

    I wonder if there are a disproportionate number of frequent casino gamblers among Tea Partiers?

  97. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 11:23 am

    Get off your high horse, HiFi. Most of what people spend their discretionary money on isn’t needed and the people who sell it spend trillions of dollars convincing them they do. It’s a waste of raw materials, energy and manpower but it provides jobs and gives people something to spend their money on if they choose. How weak and stupid are people who run their credit cards up to max, pay the minimum, and take out equity loans on their homes? Talk about preying on the stupid, but you didn’t have any sympathy for them.

  98. Reality Check
    October 21, 2010 at 11:32 am

    You are an elitist Hi-Fi, just like all the candidates you support.
    Your days of plenty are numbered!

  99. High Finance
    October 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    “most people spend their discretionary money”

    Yes Jane, MOST people do. There are hundreds of people in just the Humboldt Bay area that do not. There is plenty of pain & suffering caused by the casinos.

    The elitist is not me on this issue but Plain Jane & Reality Check. Your attitude screams “F*ck the weak & stupid. They ruin their lives, so what? None of my business.”. This compassionate conservative would rather try to protect them from themselves.

  100. Reality Check
    October 21, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    Interesting idea Hi-Fi. Unfortunately, I am a community activist and organizer that works with a diverse range of the community. Check yourself and your judgments in the mirror-your language-“stupid, poor, dumb, losers.”
    My attitude is f*ck you-that means you Hi-Fi! You are an elitist real estate agent, that has no concept of how real people live in this community. Crawl out from under your big pink rock, open the door to your BMW, and take a real hard look at yourself and tell me that I’m the elitist. You are a joke!

  101. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I know, HiFi, they should be spending it to buy stuff they don’t need from you and your friends. If it doesn’t wind up in your pocket, it’s wasteful and harms people (you and yours).

  102. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 1:44 pm

    HiFi @ 9:35 am,

    You nailed the Casinos, excellent points!

    I sure can’t really see any main differences between retail chains and casinos. Ouch, such local support.

    JL

  103. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Reality Check,

    HiFi does make a good point about the “profiled” in any community for the casino profiteers. You can’t really fault him for that, elitist or not.

    JL

  104. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Nanny HiFi wants to decide where people can spend their money to protect them from themselves?

  105. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    This comment by PJ I luv -zzzzzzzzzz

    Plain Jane says:
    October 21, 2010 at 11:23 am
    Get off your high horse, HiFi. Most of what people spend their discretionary money on isn’t needed and the people who sell it spend trillions of dollars convincing them they do. It’s a waste of raw materials, energy and manpower but it provides jobs and gives people something to spend their money on if they choose. How weak and stupid are people who run their credit cards up to max, pay the minimum, and take out equity loans on their homes? Talk about preying on the stupid, but you didn’t have any sympathy for them.

    Most people thought they had discretionary money, before they got hosed by their elcted officals and lost one thing, then another, and another, and another and so on, until it was the job, the house, the marriage, child support payments, etc…. Ya, as tra said above, simply moving money PJ, that is all (well except for the profits that leave the area!).

    as if credit cards and gambling are not connected too!

    JL

  106. Not A Native
    October 21, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Funny, HiFi eagerly extols the virtue of bringing a WalMart/Home Depot here, because people should have freedoms to choose to patronize them, or not.

    But now HiFi is just as eager to censure people having the freedom to patronize casinos because its necessary to prevent them from having that choice.

    What are the odds that politics has anything to do with HiFi’s flip flop? Its not a gamble, its a sure thing.

  107. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    He just hates the casinos that donated to Neely. He hasn’t said a word about that other big casino donating to a different supervisor who held fund raisers there as well, no doubt helping his sponsors with the increased business. His fake compassion isn’t fooling anyone who has read him for even a few weeks.

  108. High Finance
    October 21, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Not a Native makes the false assertion that WalMart only sells unnecessary things & not what people need to live. Some people cannot afford the high prices of Macy’s and WalMart serves a real need for a lot of people.

    But anybody who goes to a casino is just throwing their money away. You may as well just burn those dollars & roast marshmellows with them. That is OK for the people who only want to throw away their descretionary income. But the casinos attract the addicts, pampers them with free drinks so they won’t go away till their money is gone. I have seen homes foreclosed & marriages shattered & lives ruined by the gambling addiction.

    Unfortunately people like Reality Check think only in terms of politics & cannot think in terms of the human suffering these places cause.

  109. Plain Jane
    October 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Walmart drove the manufacturing jobs offshore which helped to wreck our economy and now people are so poor they have to shop at Walmart.

  110. Not A Native
    October 21, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Oh BS HiFi

    What gives you the authority to deny someone else’s freedom to determine what they do or don’t need? Or to buy something at a price they find acceptable. Thats precisely your gripe against the opponents of local big box stores. So the Nanny State is fine for you, just as long as you’re in authority as the nanny.

    You’re old enough to have lived before ‘needing’ 99.9% of what WalMart sells. By your own definition, WalMart preys on people by appealing to their emotions, getting them to buy stuff they don’t need.

    I’ve often heard people leaving a Big Box store say ‘Gee, I came in just for some light bulbs but ended up charging $200 of stuff on my credit card.’ HiFi, if you’re now claiming to be compassionate, you should study up on the problems that ‘hoarding behavior’ creates for people of all economic means.

  111. Mr. Nice
    October 21, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    Eureka gonna have a weed-friendly poker room in the WalMart?

  112. Reality Check
    October 21, 2010 at 10:15 pm

    Hi-Fi, I have never responded to my feeling about this subject matter.
    I stated that you are a judgmental elitist. I stand by that.

  113. High Finance
    October 22, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Having an opinion on matters is not a bad thing Reality Check. Even though I disagree with you & others here often, I respect you more than I respect people that go through life uninformed & vacant.

    But I always seek out facts & opinions as well as use my own personal experiences before forming opinions. I even change my opinions when new facts or experiences cause my perception to change. Sometimes some people’s opinions even cause me to see things in a different light.

    Take this topic of drugs and gambling. Years ago I too once thought that if people are ruined it is their fault & so who cares? But then drugs destroyed a couple of people in my immediate family & gambling addiction destroyed a couple of friends. This changed my POV into one that society should protect weak people from themselves when possible.

  114. I will vote 4
    October 25, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    I will vote for the first person who suggests and wishes to work for removing all county entitlement programs from the county back into the county and out of the city. I want the City of Eureka back!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: