Home > marijuana > Pot-grower’s paradise is lawman’s limbo

Pot-grower’s paradise is lawman’s limbo

Latest LA Times look at Humboldt County.

In a region where marijuana is not merely tolerated but is a pillar of the economy, there isn’t much a deputy can do but play along with the fantasies that surround semi-legal weed: that unemployed 20-somethings who buy $50,000 trucks earned the money legally; that supply shops for marijuana farmers are innocent home-and-garden centers; that growers who flash medical marijuana cards are not producing for sale but solely for their own medical needs.

“Cheech and Chong cannot smoke that much dope,” [Humboldt Deputy Sheriff Robert] Hamilton said.

[Photo credit Barbara Davidson, Los Angeles Times.]

  1. Walt
    October 26, 2010 at 6:23 am

    It’s GOOD for you, like penicillin or vitamins. Maybe we should start calling it Vitamin M. Kids, did you take your vitamins this morning?

  2. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 7:58 am

    It’s bad to be drugged on something every day, no matter what it is. The Arcatan running for city council who said ganja is a “gift from God” looks like he partook in this gift too much.

  3. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 26, 2010 at 8:25 am

    It’s bad to be brainwashed(politically) on something every day as well.

    Thanks for the reminder 7:58am. Now, what are the candidates positions of debate? ah, see how less attackful that is?

    As far as the thread……boring news day for the HH?

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  4. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Since the polls show Prop 19 going down in flames, is that article good for the county or bad?

  5. Gramps
    October 26, 2010 at 8:51 am

    The full article is an interesting read of marijuana in Shelter Cove for informed readers; a well-liked HCSO officer who must legally look the other way, out of state unemployed ’20 somethings’ banding together under 215 cards while growing and driving $40-50k trucks in short order, a permissive DA who lends the helping legal hand and umbrella of 215 production, hundreds of unpermitted structures and greenhouses, and enormously rising electrical usage (PG&E has told Shelter Cove residents they have to kick in $300k additional monies for additional costs and usage)… among other things.

    I encourage readers to take a look to fully understand what’s currently happening and changing in Humboldt County, why the Board of Supervisors are looking at some uniform standards and rules of conduct, and why grower’s organization are looking at the same.

    We’ve come a long ways. Perhaps some of you oldtimers will remember this incident happening 25 years ago or so: there was a mining supply company in Eureka (Northwestern Mining and Supply?) that left folks stranded on a tourist trip to South America. The DA (Mr. Farmer) chose not to prosecute if the Company participated in a sting operation. The Company started ‘selling’ growing lights and equipment– but only by accepting a mailing address and check from purchasers. Then– you guessed it– law enforcement traced the addresses down and made the busts based on the information on the books. The grow light sales stopped when the sting folded, and the company went out of business.

    Now we have a plethora of fully-legit growing supply companies catering to all, what seems like an enormous amount of money being made, legal authorization and a different DA in town, and, according to the article, some Wild West lawlessness and a resulting Gold Rush to Humboldt going on. It’s always been here, but is on a whole new level now. Maybe some standards are in order?

  6. Dogenpony
    October 26, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Here here Gramps.

  7. skippy
    October 26, 2010 at 9:22 am

    One of the eye-openers of the article is that it implies Humboldt is wide open and fertile marijuana territory for out of state growers and new residents to exercise a free reign. Understand, the article is from the Los Angeles Times endorsing the region to all who don’t live or work here. One of the growers was found to have an out of state warrant for meth production, arrested, and extradited back home, wherever that is.

  8. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 9:27 am

    There is a lot of pretending going on. We pretend that public education is educating the children. We pretend the war in Iraq is worthwhile. We pretend the questions about 911 are answered or that it is ok to be 47th in terms of life expectancy in the world. We pretend that marijuana prohibition is not a money making industry for the prisons and law enforcement agencies. Critical thinking has gone into limbo.

  9. October 26, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Gramps-Shelter Cove has their own power,they take care of and put in their own power lines/poles,but truth be told ALL of the cove is a growers haven

  10. Big Al
    October 26, 2010 at 9:41 am

    THE HGA is already working with governments and law enforcement on creating regulation and a permit fee structure.
    There is a pretty good interview with them on kmud’s website, it’s in the Audio Archives, Monday Morning Magazine from the Oct 18th show.
    Everybody should have a listen and think about this issue because if 19 passes we will all affected.

  11. Gramps
    October 26, 2010 at 10:03 am

    SmokeMonster @ 9:36, perhaps this clarifies the electrical usage at Shelter Cove further. To give credit where credit is due, this is from the LA Times article noted above of 10/25/10 by Sam Quinones, “In Humboldt County, Deputies Jobs Can Get Hazy”, that started Heraldo’s forum here:

    “For many years, development at Shelter Cove was limited by lack of electricity. Homeowners depended on generators. In 1983, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. ran an electrical line along the 21-mile road that connects the cove to Highway 101. The line’s limited capacity was more than adequate for a community where the average household use was a modest 500 to 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per month.

    Then growers moved their crops indoors and installed high-intensity lights. “We maxed out our system very quickly when this started,” said Richard Culp, the resort’s general manager. “We’re seeing 5,000, 6,000, 8,000, 9,000 kilowatt-hours of use a month.”

    Hoping to halt the trend, the resort’s utility nearly tripled the hourly rate for usage above 2,000 kilowatt-hours a month. When that made no difference, the rate for heavy usage was raised to five times the normal charge. Growers simply added more plants and lights to generate income to pay the extra cost.

    The cove’s backup generator had to be replaced, at a cost of $500,000. Last year, PG&E informed Shelter Cove that it would have to kick in $300,000 to expand the capacity of the electrical line. In all, the resort estimates that indoor pot-growing has cost its residents more than $1 million since 2005.”

    Read the article further with Heraldo’s link for more surprsing tidbits.

  12. longwind
    October 26, 2010 at 10:57 am

    The appalling truth may be that our rural areas will face depopulation of non-competitive old residents and overpopulation with new shitheads at the same time. One day this bubble too will burst. In the meantime I’m afraid we face one more ‘good’ year. Barf.

  13. High Finance
    October 26, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I don’t know if prop 19 going down in flames is good for Humboldt County or not, Annon 8.32am, but I do know it is good for society.

    Walt at 6.23am and Annon at 7.58am had the smartest posts of the day on this thread (at least until mine of course).

  14. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Thanks HiFi. Except I disagree with you about prop 19. I think legalizing will stop a lot of the violence and then it will be taxed income wise as well as sales, and then we can fund all the rehab programs to get people off it who have lost their initiative to get up a go to a job each day.

  15. October 26, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Legalize it, regulate it, tax the hell out it. Then we can all move on, even the NCJ.

  16. Thomas Paine Jr
    October 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    I find it sad and pathetic that people think that it is OK to basically install a private police man with their own money.

    Cannabis is legal for medical use and the supreme court ruled that there is no such thing as a legal limit.

    Get the hell over it already.

  17. Thomas Paine Jr
    October 26, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    PS
    HGA, and HuMMAP

    It is not legal for the county to amend prop 215 by local ordinance. See People V Kelly

  18. Thomas Jefferson Jr
    October 26, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Tell it to the Oakland oligarchs, Paine.

    Viva la Jeffersonian yeomanry!

  19. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    tax it! those growers need to know how to survive in the real USA

  20. Harold h. Greene
    October 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm

    prop. 19 may not be going down. The latest poll on it, done by the Los Angeles times this past weekend shows a margin of 39% in favor (incidentally, about what intrade has the proposition at) – from among likely voters.

    Some, however, are tying the success of the initiative to the general success of the Democratic party in California, thinking about a surge in the turn out from younger voters who favor legalizing marijuana, and who also tend to vote democratic. Rolling Stone magazine has called it, the “burnout turnout” thing, or something like that.

    Currently, Brown and Boxer are up by 11 points respectively, according to the latest from public policy poll. The Demo’s are pulling ahead, interestingly at the same time support for prop. 19 drops so dramatically.

    Who’s to say? I wonder what’s going to happen after the Restore to Sanity Rally.

  21. High Finance
    October 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    That is wishful thinking there Greene.

    That same poll you referred to, had the measure about even not too long ago. The point of their artice was that support was falling fast. That support had fallen to 39% fast.

    Under 40 age group was in favor 48% to 37%. Over 65 was 28% favor – 59% opposed. Latinos opposed it by a 2-1 margin.

    Only leading in the Central Coast counties while the interior counties were much opposed.

    While Boxer was ahead by 8 points (not 11) in one poll the Chronicle at SFGate was reporting a big surge in the latest poll with Fiornia now just 4 points behind.

  22. Harold h. Greene
    October 26, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    wishful thinking on what: Smoking marijuana legally or a democratic victory for the State of California ?

    I’m voting for both. The one because I think it’s about time we stop spending billions subsidizing the marijuana prohibition trade. The other, because I know, despite the loud announcement from the Obama administration against legalizing marijuana, voting democratic is the best way to achieve that change, even change as fundamental and absolutely reasonable as ending the prohibition of cannabis and hemp.

    It’s time the people speak. And what a great way of demonstrating that with a democratically legal move against a stupid federal domestic policy like illegal marijuana.

    and Boxer is ahead by 9 points … and I bet 19 is gonna pass.

  23. Bolithio
    October 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    Its not surprising that this measure is failing. It it terribly written.

  24. Mr. Nice
    October 26, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    If this prop 19 shit doesn’t pass, I don’t know about y’all, but I’m a use some weed in protest. That is if I can find a sack… it being a rarely encountered controlled substance and all.

  25. Steak n Eggs
    October 26, 2010 at 7:09 pm

    “The State is spending billions of dollars subsidizing the marijuana prohibition trade..” Where does this assertion come from?

  26. Harold h. Greene
    October 26, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    yeah, just look, for example, at all the marijuana CAMP eradicated just this last week. A waste of millions, throwing away all that good pot.

    Those helicopters they use are expensive too. The guys we pay to do that kind of stuff get awesome retirement packages. I know it to be true. All because of marijuana.

    It’s silly. It’s only marijuana. In my opinion.

  27. Bolithio
    October 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Remember, Prop 19 does not legalize weed.

    Id personally rather see something more like; “release all pot related prisoners who are not serving with an associated violent offense.” I bet that would save us some education budgets.

  28. Mr. Nice
    October 26, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    “The State is spending billions of dollars subsidizing the marijuana prohibition trade..” Where does this assertion come from?

    From “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition”. Page 23 has a table saying California blows $22 billion on annual police, judicial, and corrections with $981 million of that pissed away on subsidizing the price of cannabis. Logic goes that marijuana market is worth $14 billion only since the state spends $981 million to artificially fix the price of an A-grade outdoor elbow to $2800 or whatever that sells for. If the state spent money doing something for farmer like… I don’t know… guaranteeing water supplies or some shit, some people would call that a subsidy too.

  29. Good Picture
    October 26, 2010 at 8:03 pm

    Thats a good picture. Its too bad you cant see the other 6-7 clearings within a 1/4 mile of that greenie. EPIC keeps crying about timber companies who log and re-plant trees. Think about the amount of holes that have been opened up in last 10 years – and how this intensity is increasing exponentially. A clear cut is replanted and is forest again within 10 years. I doubt very many people are planting trees over their previous grows.

    Those patches, little 1-3 acre clear cuts add up no? Does pot mitigate against habitat loss? Are they scoping and surveying for endangered species? Do they know if they are in a spotted owl core zone? Are their openings in riparian areas? Do they pull water out of the creeks? Are they considering the base flows of the watershed? Are they maintaining their roads and watercourse crossings? Are they properly treating their slash generated from clearing the forest? Are they grading over archaeological sites? Does anyone care?

  30. Anonymous
    October 26, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Yes, this is a lot about what the general plan discussion is about.

  31. Mr. Nice
    October 26, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    Those patches, little 1-3 acre clear cuts add up no?

    No not really. Not after people cut 1.9 million acres or whatever.

    Does pot mitigate against habitat loss?

    Huh? Does corn?

    Are they scoping and surveying for endangered species?

    Rippers are not an endangered species. They are like ants, come back every fall.

    Do they know if they are in a spotted owl core zone?

    Nah

    Are their openings in riparian areas?

    Mostly no because rippers follow the water.

    Do they pull water out of the creeks?

    I mean if they got a gas pump or a water ram or some other Mexican cartel shit then hell yea they do.

    Are they considering the base flows of the watershed?

    Psshst

    Are they maintaining their roads and watercourse crossings?

    What roads dude?

    Are they properly treating their slash generated from clearing the forest?

    If you mean not dumping it in the creek then uh…

    Are they grading over archaeological sites?

    Like guerrilla growers flattening out big squats of land? Seems like a waste of time if there ain’t any irrigation ditch and you got to run drip lines anyway.

    Does anyone care?

    I hope so. People don’t need to be hiding in the woods just to grow a plant that grows in soil that wouldn’t grow shit otherwise. The only reason this plant hides is government, not regular people. People would plant it on their patio, not so much in the sticks.

  32. Harold h. Greene
    October 26, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    no, not in the woods nor in their spare bedrooms. Not for marijuana.

    corrections do work to subsidize the marijuana prohibition trade – billions, not 981 million. you’re thinking too small.

  33. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    October 26, 2010 at 10:07 pm

    HiFi @ 4:36 pm makes a good point at discussing ages and interests.

    As always, it will be when the older generations pass on that society gets to change, for change in America is restricted by those of seniority.

    JL

  34. Anonymous
    October 27, 2010 at 2:28 am

    From the Arcata Eye with a 0% chance of surviving James Faulk blocking this…come on James, cut us some slack. Paul may go, but you’ll still have a job as long as Rob is in town….

    PAUL HAGEN: GALLEGOS IS NO ALTERNATIVE — OCTOBER 26, 2010

    http://www.arcataeye.com/2010/10/paul-hagen-gallegos-is-no-alternative-%E2%80%93-october-26-2010/

    “Having already shared my experiences in running for district attorney this past spring in an open letter to the media (Arcata Eye, Oct. 6), I just read a public plea to my supporters to vote for Gallegos, headlined that he is “the only logical alternative for Hagen supporters.” (Jeff Schwartz, Arcata Eye, Oct. 20) That is absolutely not the case.

    Now my opponent is calling for my supporters, and that calls to me. Those who know me know that I am “honest to a fault” (Eye endorsement, June 2), and while I completely refrained from negative campaigning and wish to keep it that way, Mr. Schwartz’s article calls for my unvarnished (albeit restrained) opinion. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

    First, there are three things I wish to make perfectly clear: One, I have made it very clear to anyone who has asked that I am not endorsing anyone in this race. Two, I have unequivocally told this to Allison Jackson directly. Three, the reasons for this will not change.

    Next, please know that I have never had a problem with Jeff Schwartz and I do respect him and those who agree with his statements. I learned a lot campaigning, including insights into what moves Gallegos’s supporters to believe in him. If they still do after reading this, I respect that, too.

    My life’s experiences and core values, however, absolutely do not allow me to agree. To the contrary, what I know from hard years of direct experience is that the man is congenitally unqualified, and in so many ways. His defects lie at his core. This, too, will not change.

    I write to comment on three areas of character–competence and ethics, with courage spanning them–and I write about the intersection of these in politics as it affects the public good. Please bear with me:

    In a professional, one first looks to competence: Can the person do the job well, or learn to in a reasonable time? While many believe that Gallegos was courageous as well as competent in prosecuting Palco, or the Eureka police in the Moore case, neither was actually so. I spent 11 years as an environmental prosecutor, and it still hurts for me to read the Palco appellate court’s decision rebuking District Attorney Gallegos. Read it yourself, it is embarrassing. The police prosecutions were fully as disastrous in the damage done and their cost to the county, not to mention their national coverage for likewise being thrown out of court for failure to meet minimum standards and a crazy legal theory. There are also the Grand Jury reports still finding incompetence in Gallegos’ office. These are well-known facts. All of this he addresses by explaining away, but the facts remain.

    As to courage, I would expect nothing less than the DA taking on corporations, etc. I criminally prosecuted two multinational corporations for killing a man at work in Mendocino County, winning a court ruling that corporations have no Fifth Amendment rights and receiving a quarter of a million dollars in settlement in doing so. I also prosecuted Palco twice criminally and got literally every last penny available in penalties, and once civilly receiving $80,000, $35,000 of which I sent to three grade schools in the Van Duzen River valley for violation-related science education. In all that I did as a prosecutor I never once thought about courage, but rather always about displaying high competence at every stage from investigation to settling. To me, doing “the right thing” is at best worthless when you badly screw it up.

    Which brings us to ethics. Telling your staff you are going home sick while they stay at work and then going surfing during business hours is not ethical. Nor is using your taxpayer-paid office staff in political campaign announcements, whom we hear on the radio and see on TV and in the newspapers. Nor is deliberately smearing your political opponents, and it’s undeniably not ethical when you lie doing it.

    Nor is it ethical to take full credit for what others have done, as in the Big Oil and Tire and the Skilled Healthcare cases, the settlements of which are now being used in ads which the Gallegos campaign is touting was “all because of Paul.” This is not ethical because it is not true.These cases were not “all” Gallegos’s, not by a long shot. Check it out yourself. The Attorney General representing the Regional Water Board did the great bulk of the Big Oil case because the Humboldt DA and the responsible county agency would not, yet Gallegos’s supporters and his ads take full credit. Three private law firms initiated the Skilled Healthcare case and again did most of the work, but in his ads Gallegos takes full credit. His ads are neither true nor ethical.

    If you really want the truth about Gallegos’ professional ethics, inquire of him why the other affected DA’s and the Attorney General all refused to join in his Skilled Healthcare settlement due to their ‘ethical concerns’ over his use of secret settlement monies and more. Ask Gallegos himself to explain directly, honestly and openly the formal rebuke he has received from the California District Attorneys Association for his unprofessional use of DA authority in settling that case. Go ahead, ask him to explain honestly and directly. He won’t. That would require real courage and the capacity to tell the truth regardless. He has neither.

    I realize that many in Humboldt admire his willingness to file suit against Palco, fight evil corporations, etc. I respect such admiration. And I agree not only in principle, I’ve been there and done that. But this is not what people in Humboldt are really getting.
    For an office holder, these character traits take their most telling form in campaigning. While being dishonest is more than bad enough, vilification, smearing, and divisive politics are worse. This is Gallegos’ fourth campaign and in each of the others he has done these things and won. In announcing his first campaign Gallegos shamelessly copied Bobby Kennedy’s announcement speech for U.S. President as his own, without attribution (Tri-City Weekly, Feb. 26, 2002; more plagiarism followed, Eureka Reporter, Sept. 7 and Sept. 8, 2006), promising great progressivism. The recall campaign, however –which I have already publicly condemned – was used as an opportunity to drive Humboldt’s cultural wedges all the deeper; and in the 2006 election his campaign depressed the county’s voting middle and polarized its tails. This does not enhance the public good.

    In 2006, opposing candidate Dikeman was made into someone to hate and fear, with the same to Jackson this time. Schwartz himself is using fear in his appeal, using PG&E’s nuclear power plant – a field strictly under federal regulation, no DA can touch it – as the basis for not having Jackson and her “nuclear-plant crowd stick together and take Humboldt County back to the dark ages.” Really? Is that what will actually happen if he loses? Either Gallegos saves us from radiation or “the Humboldt County environment and much more goes down the drain?” Really? This simple dichotomy is more senseless than taking credit for a drop in crime based on gross statistics. Any thinking person knows that simple correlation does not equal causation. And yet, appealing to fear, Gallegos tells us he has made the county safer. Really? Then explain exactly how.

    If the Gallegos campaign wishes to “ask, beg and implore” “those progressive leaders who supported Paul Hagen to endorse Paul Gallegos,” it can. Again, I realize that many in Humboldt admire his willingness to file suit against Palco, fight evil corporations, etc. I respect such admiration. And I agree not only in principle, I’ve been there and done that. But this is not what people in Humboldt are really getting.

    Regardless of what Gallegos has done or says, he is not my idea of “progressive.” That requires truly living to progressive ideals and delivering solid results. Based on publicly known facts, I have tried to show here why Gallegos’ so-called ‘progressiveness’ is at best just political form without professional substance. Good intentions delivering incompetent results does not equal being “progressive.” Based on my direct personal experiences, my knowledge of Paul Gallegos’ utter lack of what I consider true ethics, courage and honesty, as well as his now-proven political campaign-trash tactics, I believe these things fundamentally disqualify his being a progressive. Or a district attorney.

    For all those reading who aren’t concerned about the progressive/dark ages argument, good for you. What matters is results, not talk. So just look to what Gallegos has actually done as DA and how he went about it – his actual results, not what he says they are. After two actual elections he has shown us his best, and just as the Palco appellate court unanimously wrote, he has “failed to prove, on [his] third try, a reasonable possibility that [his] defect can be cured.” And so, making new law, it threw out the case.

    Ours is a participatory democracy, a great gift. Each vote matters. Vote your hearts, vote your minds, and vote for the future you want. If it looks anything like my envisioned future, Paul Gallegos is not a “logical alternative.” Like Dan Quayle, Paul Gallegos is no Bobby Kennedy. He is no alternative.

    Paul Hagen served as a criminal and civil prosecutor in four North Coast district attorney’s offices, including Humboldt’s. He is currently is an attorney in Eureka and believes deeply in participatory democracy.

  35. Harold h. Greene
    October 27, 2010 at 7:05 am

    “My life’s experiences and core values, however, absolutely do not allow me to agree. To the contrary, what I know from hard years of direct experience is that the man is congenitally unqualified, and in so many ways. His defects lie at his core. This, too, will not change.”

    Ms. Jackson does understand that this does not count as an endorsement of her campaign and she in no way should claim it as such in any of her mailers. right?

    vote Gallegos for integrity and competence, and to keep to the sheep from watching the cows.

  36. Harold h. Greene
    October 27, 2010 at 7:37 am

    um, I mean, “to keep the sheep from watching the cows.”

  37. Bolithio
    October 27, 2010 at 8:48 am

    What is a ‘ripper’ Mr Nice?

  38. High Finance
    October 27, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Paul Hagan’s letter should be a devastating read for all you Gallego supporters.

  39. Harold h. Greene
    October 27, 2010 at 9:16 am

    congenitally, to the very core.

  40. tra
    October 27, 2010 at 9:29 am

    The guy who came in third seems a bit bitter towards the guy who came in first…big surprise.

  41. longwind
    October 27, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Hagan’s letter is a great example of why we didn’t vote for him.

    Allison’s the cop’s cop, Hagen’s the wolf in nanny’s clothing, and Paul’s the DA, thank God.

  42. High Finance
    October 27, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    I wonder if Longwind realizes he just gave Alison Jackson a great compliment?

  43. tra
    October 27, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Only if you think the DA’s office should be bought and paid for by local law enforcement interests.

  44. longwind
    October 27, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    It’s the compliment she returns every time she makes it clear that if you’re arrested, you must be guilty, and she’ll take care of that.

    Hi Fi, this is also why lawyers aren’t judges. I know I know, it’s inefficient.

  45. Harold h. Greene
    October 27, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    it’s how they do it places, like Bakersfield.

  46. Mitch
    October 27, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    So Mr. Nice,

    This will reveal me as a hopelessly out-of-it case, but I only discovered through the LA Times article that there’s a strain called Mr. Nice. Are you named after it, it after you, or neither?

  47. October 27, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Hagen is long, very, very, very (you get the idea) long on accusations and opinions, but provides no proof. And like, Jackson, is hardly an objective source of information.

    He also makes Jeff look like the soul of brevity.

  48. tra
    October 27, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    The fact that he felt he had to throw in the surfing incident seems like an indication that he realizes how weak all his lame complaints really are. Just kind of a throw-all-the-mud-you’ve-got-and-see-if-anything-sticks approach.

    Hagen’s bitterness is sad, but I suppose it’s not surprising considering the fact of how badly he fared in the first round of voting, coupled with the sensitive nature of his rather inflated ego.

  49. Un-Named
    October 27, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    well fox, when it comes to putting somebody in office, I’ll take Jeff’s wordy diatribes, which amount to low-key common sense in practice, over the chumps who hide from the public and only “speak” to us with campaign money PR. Hopefully the future will look back at these early years of the internet and see in plain writing that the people who care the most and would do the most aren’t taken as seriously as they should…sadly because they’re unafraid to engage in open dialog at any time.

    You can bet every local candidate is lurking the Humboldt blogsphere, especially right now. Where are they? Careful (afraid) of saying the wrong thing. It doesn’t look much different here than anywhere else…a popularity contest between the wealthiest and stealthiest candidates.

  50. Mr. Nice
    October 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    What is a ‘ripper’ Mr Nice?

    Someone who rips off weed plants.

    So Mr. Nice,

    This will reveal me as a hopelessly out-of-it case, but I only discovered through the LA Times article that there’s a strain called Mr. Nice. Are you named after it, it after you, or neither?

    Neither, I stole this moniker from Mr. Nice.

    Used to use Felix Mitchell but board posters didn’t get it and thought that was my actual name.

  51. Anonymous
    October 28, 2010 at 7:40 am

    Is being a ripper illegal? Growing pot is.

  52. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 8:09 am

    actually, marijuana is legal now. It’s been that way for the last thirteen years, or so.

  53. South Coaster
    October 28, 2010 at 9:19 am

    Hagan is a corporate stooge. His idea of participatory democracy it to empower the Shelter Cove utility district with millions of dollars so they can buy each manager a new $50,000 trucks, 4 day work weeks, 10 weeks vacation pay and holidays, and million dollar pensions. While putting everyone else in the growers camp. Government is Hagan’s God. Sounds like the dark ages to me. It’s a good thing he lost whether you like Gallegos or not.

  54. Eurekite
    October 28, 2010 at 9:56 am

    The best thing I’ve seen in the Prop 19 campaign is that the opposition has only one argument: That it is a “poorly written law.”

    That’s all they’ve got.

  55. Big Al
    October 28, 2010 at 10:16 am

    I think the “poorly written” attitude is because the local laws aren’t spelled out.
    People are lazy and those making the laws aren’t experts in the field, they are looking for a model to base the local ordinances on rather than study the thing and craft one of their own. the fact that what is allowed under 19 is in part up to local laws is appealing in that counties that don’t want it can go “Dry” while others can embrace it.

  56. longwind
    October 28, 2010 at 10:37 am

    I think the biggest reason critics call Prop 19 (which I’m voting for) corporate is what Big Al says, that local jurisdictions will make the laws, and those controlled by big interests will make them first. Oakland certainly proves the thesis.

    It’s interesting that Humboldt doesn’t. The Supervisors last Tuesday committed the county to an open and transparent public process in creating our pot ordinance, despite the best efforts of “the Number 1 cannabis lobbyist in California,” if he must say so himself, Max del Real, who labors in the potyards of Humboldt Growers Association.

    Had the Supes shown this sensitivity to public input years ago, the county would be far less divided now. I applaud their recognition that pot seriously divides the county still, and lots more open talking is necessary. If only we could seat a Truth and Reconciliation Commission–but we’re too divided.

    Eurekite, the other charge that creates an easy rabble for the anti’s is that Prop 19 further criminalizes (into the California Constitution, no less) a 21-year-old passing a joint to a 19-year-old, with separate sanctions against an 18-year-old passing a joint to a 17-year-old. This pandering to the lock-em-up lobby has cost Prop 19 significant youth support, which should be locked up.

    In fairness, prohibition was created to discriminate against Mexicans, and popularized itself discriminating against black jazz musicians, and institutionalized itself by crimininalizing young black men, so it’s fitting that it will go out discriminating, finally, against defenseless young whites too. Prop 19 is just another step down the long, wandering trail to justice.

  57. Anonymous
    October 28, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Harold, actually it’s not, unless you are growing for medical use. Gee, and honestly, very few are truly using it for that. Did you know that?

  58. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Gee, honestly. Whether a person needs it, or not, is between physician and patient. I know that.

    also those who drink whiskey regularly only have to go to a store who pushes it. And those whiskey drinkers don’t have to account for their actions of whiskey drinking to any body. I know that one, too.

  59. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Whiskey drinking kills people. using marijuana never has – only growing marijuana illegally has does that.

  60. what it is
    October 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Using pot destroys lives too, in a different way than alcohol. Chronic pot use reduces initiative, the ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, reduces ability to be productive and make good choices. The most severe effects of pot happen over time, takes years of heavt use for the damage to be obvious. The older the stoner, the more FU’ed they are.

  61. Un-Named
    October 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    I believe in the complete and unconditional decriminalization of all “drugs”. Having to beg for an inch of freedom, supporting the money machine, forcing law enforcement to restrict common sense, and using “drugs” as a means of control are…very bad. Some of us may be dumb, but we’re all more intelligent and capable than to deserve that.

  62. Un-Named
    October 28, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    what it is, everything you describe I see happening among completely sober people. Also, your statement “the older the stoner, the more FU’ed they are” is completely untrue. Marijuana, from what I see, helps stave senility, demensia and similar afflictions. Without question. Point is, don’t tell me what I can and cannot do with my body. I’m not going to force you one way or another either, and will continue to respect you as an independent and intelligent individual regardless of your afflictions as long as you do the same.

  63. Mitch
    October 28, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    Interesting story, Mr. Nice, one I’d never heard of. I’m probably going to order a copy of his book.

  64. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    what it says was talking about whiskey drinkers.

  65. what it is
    October 28, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    un-named, what I’ve seen is different from you’ve seen. It would be nice to have some totally objective perspective that explains what both of us have seen in a way we’d both agree with. Until that’s available, I think the precautionary principle is the right way to go.

    I’m in favor of people having the freedom to use their bodies as they choose. I also believe its proper to limit that freedom based on the effects it causes to other people(and the environment). Especially when I’m personal harmed.

  66. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    ” I also believe its proper to limit that freedom based on the effects it causes to other people(and the environment). Especially when I’m personal harmed.”

    using that line of argument,

    In terms of proportionate harm to society, liquor stores and bars should be made illegal.

    consider marijuana. No harm in its use outside its prohibition.

  67. what it is
    October 28, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    greene, Just your saying its so doesn’t make it so. I’ve already described the pot harms I’ve seen.

    More importantly, I don’t agree with your idea of proportionate harm between different behaviors is a correct way to determine how to limit freedoms. Each way of using your body stands on its own with unique types of harms.

  68. tra
    October 28, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    “No harm in its use outside its prohibition.”

    I’m not sure I can agree with that. I would say ” not very much harm.”

    I would certainly agree that there is far less harm caused by pot use than the harm caused by pot prohibition, which by the way is the relevant question here.

  69. High Finance
    October 28, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Maybe the “less” harm by pot use is actually caused by the pot prohibition.

  70. Mitch
    October 28, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    I think it’s really possible that full legalization (in the US as well as California) will lead to serious harm as corporate pushers do their deeds. Fortunately, even if CA were to legalize, the US will not, at least for a while.

    What is really needed, but which goes against this country’s supposed “most-cherished principles” is an admission that there are some products that should be legal to use, legal to produce, and legal to sell in mom-and-pop quantities, but which should be kept away from the “free market” and large-scale advertising.

    Tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and pot all fall into that category.

    But to admit that modern day corporate America should not be allowed to push otherwise-legal products would be like admitting that the United States was not God’s favored country… third-rail politics.

  71. longwind
    October 28, 2010 at 3:57 pm

    Sure, I’d rather have 800,000 people locked in jail than spaced out on their sofas any day.

  72. Plain Jane
    October 28, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Pot legalization could be treated just like home brewing. You can’t sell it.

  73. Harold h. Greene
    October 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Okay, I could be exaggerating a bit.

    Yet most people who use marijuana are not harmed by its use. The harm I see comes from it being made illegal for not more than gratuitous rationales by the misinformed, or by misinforming individuals.

    The harm with marijuana brownies, for example, comes from the institutionalized violence created by seventy years of cannabis brownie prohibition. If that fact is wrong, marijuana brownie toxicity would have been noted a long time before 1937,as it had already been done with opium, cocaine,heroin, alcohol and tobacco use.

    Yes, it may an exaggeration to say no harm after its prohibition, but please tell me what harm to the rest of us is there if marijuana use is made legal without the prescription of a presiding physician.

  74. tra
    October 28, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    “Maybe the “less” harm by pot use is actually caused by the pot prohibition.”

    Nice try, HiFi (and extra points for the brevity and clarity of your argument), but the fact is that cannabis is readily available and used by millions. If cannabis caused a lot of problems, these would be readily measurable, and could be compared to alcohol-related harms on a per-user basis…but the evidence of serious harm from cannabis use just isn’t there.

    Meanwhile, the evidence for the serious harms caused by alcohol and alcoholism are well-documented: deaths due to alcohol poisoning, deaths and injuries due to DUIs, deaths and illnesses due to liver disease, deaths and injuries and ruined lives due to other health effects of chronic alcoholism, deaths and injuries due to alcohol-related brawls and fights, deaths and injuries and ruined families due to alcohol-related domestic violence, etc., etc., etc.

  75. Un-Named
    October 28, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    Well put, tra. It says just as much that everytime somebody says what you just did, it’s in one ear and out the other with some people. Alcohol, cocaine, opiates, tobacco, marijuana, mescaline, etc. etc. have been produced and consumed in great volume for centuries. There’s more than enough “evidence” to start calling it “proof”.

  76. tra
    October 28, 2010 at 6:52 pm

    Decriminalizing pot (and other drug) has not led to an increase in use in Portugal, which decriminalized all personal possession in 2001. In fact, use of the decriminalized drugs actually declined. Check it out:

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

  77. Anonymous
    October 28, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Harold: tell it to the judge. It doesn’t matter what you think. It is still illegal. I am not convinced pot is so much better than alcohol. I know so many people who have given up on their life goals and just hang out and smoke every day. Foggy head, foggy life.

  78. Mr. Nice
    October 28, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    Using pot destroys lives too, in a different way than alcohol. Chronic pot use reduces initiative, the ability to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, reduces ability to be productive and make good choices. The most severe effects of pot happen over time, takes years of heavt use for the damage to be obvious. The older the stoner, the more FU’ed they are.

    Intelligence and drive, those are not about pot. I know some people, they think in a certain way. These people’s thoughts are repetitive, they use interesting syntax and punctuation to express them. The older they are, the more they fancy their own style, and the more FU’ed their style becomes.

    Amotivational syndrome is bullshit. Errybody knows this. Michael Phelps. Sir Richard Branson, Carl Sagan. Real unmotivated folks. They didn’t do big things like you right? 5,000 years of undriven people got replaced by 97 years of driven Californians. What about half the goddamn population of California? Gotta be some folks who are still driven even after repeatedly breaking the worst law on the books. Worst besides it being illegal to get married if you are gay that is.

  79. tra
    October 28, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    “I know so many people who have given up on their life goals and just hang out and smoke every day. Foggy head, foggy life.”

    I know plenty of cannabis users, none of whom fit that description. Maybe you need some new friends.

  80. Caspar
    October 28, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    tra brings up some good points. Plenty of cannabis users might very well be your lawyer, doctor, accountant, salesman, teacher, etc., etc. I think a few Presidents might have toked up as well but we’ll never hear much of that.

    On another note, if alcohol were to have been ‘invented’ only several years ago it certainly wouldn’t be legal by any longshot today.

  81. Mr. Nice
    October 28, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    On another note, if alcohol were to have been ‘invented’ only several years ago it certainly wouldn’t be legal by any longshot today.

    True, folks wouldn’t have enough aldehyde dehydrogenase genetics to resist rampant alcoholism.

    Like this study on ALDH1A1*3. Took thousands of years to breed this in by all the lushes not getting laid. Don’t know how “certain Native American tribes” got this… prolly traded up prehistoric peyote.

    Ain’t no early agriculture trait like that for weed. If anything cultures bred weed to suit them.

  82. 69er
    October 28, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    “I know so many people who have given up on their life goals and just hang out and smoke every day. Foggy head, foggy life.”

    “I know plenty of cannabis users, none of whom fit that description. Maybe you need some new friends.”

    They aren’t friends, they are my oldest son, now 54 yrs. and my granddaughter now in state prison due to going on to the “hard” stuff. The hard stuff included prescription drugs stolen from friends and family.
    I can also add to that 2 brothers that grew up as my next door neighbors and are now both stoners and a severe burdon on society. They were at one time friends with my son, no longer, he at least had enough sense to divest himself of them.
    I also saw a lot of the consequences of cannabis use in my 30 year career as a first responder in the emergency field as one of the “good guys”. I have been there and have seen the consequences and cannot justify legalizing it.

  83. Mitch
    October 29, 2010 at 6:56 am

    69er,

    Thank you for sharing a difficult story. You certainly offer food for thought.

    I would guess that any first responder would have horror stories of the destruction wrought by alcoholism and the effects of driving under the influence. Yet I doubt most would conclude that alcohol prohibition should be brought back.

    So, yes, perhaps some people abuse cannabis to the point that it has a serious impact on their lives.

    Why does that justify complete prohibition, and the resulting corruption and ruined lives?

    Since you bring up four people in only two households, I wonder if you expanded your survey to include, say, the nearest twenty households, if you might find many people who use cannabis to no ill-effect. Possible?

  84. Harold h. Greene
    October 29, 2010 at 7:45 am

    ” Foggy head, foggy life.”

    gee …

    I know a few people, who know other people who know some others, who said that Louie Armstrong was arrested for being a black man.

  85. High Finance
    October 29, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Thanks for the personal story 69er.

    I also have suffered losses in my family due to drugs. Not in deaths (yet), but in wasted lives and destroyed relations with other family members. Long term pot use has sucked the ambition and energy out of two very close & talented family members & destroyed their chances of a useful productive life.

    Their children grew up in a life of poverty while the parents sat on the couch stoned & got fat. Now those children are voters in their 20’s & are extremly anti-drugs & anti prop 19.

  86. Mr. Nice
    October 29, 2010 at 7:41 pm

    So High Finance, no offense but your genes are prolly predisposed to addiction if that many folks in your family have problems. Me, I got nobody in my fam who has problems with drugs so I can’t know how you feel. Friends of mine have had problems with alcohol and drugs in their family and for themselves so I can sympathize a little. But objectively speaking, society shouldn’t condemn the 90% of people who have no problem for the sake of protecting the 10% that do.

    And by international drug control’s own stats, only 0.3%-0.4% of the U.S. population are problem drug users. All these laws over 1 out of 300 people when half the population in this country is killing themselves (and our health industry) by being grossly overweight and a fifth can’t get enough employment. The value of these drug laws don’t make sense to me so I’ll vote yes on anything that turns that around.

  87. High Finance
    October 29, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Mr Nice, would you say that somebody who gets drunk every day has a serious, serious problem with alcohol?

    And by the way, that “1 out of 300 people” you so casually dismiss equals more than 1 MILLION people !

    But your numbers are off. The estimate is that 3.1 million people use pot every single day.

    http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k4/dailymj.htm

  88. Anonymous
    October 29, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Mr. Nice agrees that pot is addictive. It is enjoyable for a little recreation but the daily use of it has destroyed many people. Here they are thinking it is such a godsend, and it is destroying them. It’s no better than any mind bender. I see it every day.

  89. tra
    October 29, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    “somebody who gets drunk every day”

    “3.1 million people use pot every single day”

    Not the same thing. Many people use alcohol routinely, yet do not “get drunk” daily, if ever, and do not, in my opinion, have an “alcohol problem” in any meaningful sense of that phrase. A habit? Yes. A “problem?” Not necessarily.

    Similarly, most of the 3.1 million daily cannabis users also have a habit, but not necessarily a “problem”…other than being criminalized for no good reason. The number of people for whom cannabis actually causes problems anywhere near as severe as someone who “gets drunk every day” (a full-blown alcoholic) is truly miniscule, if indeed there is anyone who even fits that description.

    Which brings us back to the relevant point: Namely, that cannabis prohibition causes far more harm than cannabis use itself, a conclusion that’s shared by more and more Americans every year. That’s why in the long run, prohibition is doomed. The sooner we stop wasting resources with this counterproductive approach, the better.

  90. Harold h. Greene
    October 30, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    “The estimate is that 3.1 million people use pot every single day.”

    The primary reason to pass prop. 19

  91. Harold h. Greene
    October 30, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    “Using pot destroys lives too, in a different way than alcohol.”

    substance abuse disrupts lives.

    Also, 800,000 people year are arrested for just having marijuana. So, to be more to point, illegal marijuana destroys lives.

  92. Harold h. Greene
    October 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    “Mr. Nice agrees that pot is addictive. It is enjoyable for a little recreation but the daily use of it has destroyed many people. Here they are thinking it is such a godsend, and it is destroying them. It’s no better than any mind bender. I see it every day.”

    It relieves fatigue. When African Americans were still slaves working fifteen hours a day, cannabis was used for that reason, among others.

    It was (is) used by immigrant laborers from Mexico and Latin America, as well.

    Marijuana can be habit forming,yes. But it’s nothing what a six pack of beer every afternoon can do, no doubt.

  93. Harold h. Greene
    October 30, 2010 at 9:31 pm

    “It’s no better than any mind bender. I see it every day.”

    point of fact, that’s not true. Marijuana does not work by destroying brain cells. Actually, it’s been shown that cannabis works against things like mind dementia and cancer.

  94. Mr. Nice
    October 31, 2010 at 11:20 am

    High Finance, my stat is correct, 0.3%-0.4% problem drug users in the world population. Some countries are 0.5%. This figure has not changed much in over 100 years. UNODC (United Nations Office of Drug Control) documents talk about this stat which varies year to year depending on which nations participate in surveys or how much methamphetamine is smoked in South Africa.

    They don’t count people who smoke cannabis every day as “problem drug users.” People have to cause problems to get rolled into the problem drug user stat.

    The UNODC propaganda itself is far-fetched. They want countries who employ capital punishment for drug crime (Singapore, China, Taiwan, etc.) to stop. They want Americans, Europeans, and Australians to magically “lower demand.” They want universal access to non-compulsory, publicly funded drug rehabilitation. But they don’t want legalization… the totality of that bureau would be unemployed under legalization. For me, people who support drug prohibition support quasi-communist new world order bureaucracies telling us what to do.

  95. Anonymous
    October 31, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    You can stand up for it all you want, Harold, but pot is just another drug. It is also used as a medicine as is effective for that, yes. An every day user loses in another way, quite different than the every day drinker who overdoes it. The drinker may be damaging their body more, but they can hold a productive job when they are not drunk. The every day pot smoker can lose their initiative to the degree that they are content without following the dream they once had.

  96. Harold h. Greene
    October 31, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    You must know a lot of unmotivated marijuana smokers.

    so, you think people who don’t have dreams of what they want to be to the rest of the world ( namely, you) is because of them smoking too much marijuana?

    enjoy your whiskey.

  97. Bolithio
    October 31, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I dont know guys, it sounds like you are describing depression, not MJ use. How many people just simply loose their initiative without ‘drugs’? The escape into a controlled substance is often the result of preexisting depression. Same with TV or video games.

    Once again ‘reefer madness’ mentality clouding sound reasoning.

  98. Harold h. Greene
    October 31, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    “You can stand up for it all you want, Harold, but pot is just another drug.”

    It’s a weed which grows in every hemisphere. It’s older to human culture than beer is. Hemp seed oil lighted the first decades of the industrial revolution. And was the base material for cordage for whaling ships which supplied industrial needs for oil until we learned to process and use petroleum.

    Marijuana and hemp were made illegal the same year prohibition on alcohol was reversed, 1937. All those other bad drugs, opium, alcohol, tobacco were identified 20 years prior. Why did we wait so long to criminalize the use of industrial use of hemp and marijuana for medicinal use, and for use by american jazz singers?

    Bottom line, people’s social degeneracy because of marijuana use is more about you than about marijuana users. I suggest you get over yourself.

  99. Harold h. Greene
    October 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    “Once again ‘reefer madness’ mentality clouding sound reasoning.”

    which is seen most persistently in people who cast insults of moral, social or mental want onto those who favor decriminalization, at the same time defend the use of alcohol.

  100. Mr. Nice
    October 31, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    The drinker may be damaging their body more, but they can hold a productive job when they are not drunk

    To stereotype, lushes spell bad, smell bad, can’t add and ain’t grads. Productive meaning punching in without a hangover sometimes then okay, sure you’re right. I doubt most drunks would be doing themselves wrong switching to blunts.

  101. Anonymous
    July 5, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    It’s good Green management.

    2009 Shelter Cove Resort Improvement District Salaries

    Shelter Cove Utility Superintendant $108,989
    Shelter Cove General Manager $105,341
    Shelter Cove Utility Superintendant $97,544
    Shelter Cove Construction Superintendant $82,377
    Shelter Cove Construction Foreman $78,436
    Shelter Cove Senior Utility Operator $71,723

  102. Independence Day
    July 6, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Tax the rich to support the government!

  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: