Home > marijuana > Humboldt pot growers in the Sacramento Bee

Humboldt pot growers in the Sacramento Bee

Despite the failure of Prop. 19, a media spotlight remains fixed on our neck of the weeds:

In Humboldt, population 138,000, it is more common to ask who doesn’t grow pot than who does. As open-air gardens and greenhouses bloom in the mountains, average citizens supplement their income growing under shimmering lights at home.
  1. High Finance
    November 29, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Typical silly media exaggeration. Meant to be taken as entertainment and not as news. Meant to sell newspapers & not to inform.

  2. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Hell, it works for the Times-Standard.

  3. Future Resident
    November 29, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Indeed it is time but most important to maintain the small artisan quality and variety only found in the golden triangle. A happy medium should be sought as I think 40k in area is like industrial and detrimental. Furthermore, the Sonoma/Napa area should be used as a kind of model. Where the art is displayed for what it is and visitors can come and enjoy. Especially many that would come from out of town once it all goes legal! As any other commodity we have to pay tax in order to provide for the commonwealth of us all. Its good to read about the fire trucks and all so perhaps there should be more support for local law enforcement as well. Perhaps an annual policeman’s ball! Just a thought!

  4. Redwood
    November 29, 2010 at 11:08 am

    40K sq ft is almost an acre.Allowing 25 sq ft(5×5) per plant a grower could harvest 1600 plants in one cycle.1600 plants of that size will produce between 2 to 5 pounds of buds per plant or 3200 – 6000 pounds of bud and another ton+ of shake for hash making and baking etc.
    Mom & Pop ??? Me thinks not.

  5. longwind
    November 29, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Agreed, Redwood. At the HempFest forum at the Mateel last week, the HGA lobbyist and HuMMAP reps both presented, and HuMMAP polled attendees on what they defined as ‘small,’ between 100 square feet and HGA’s one-acre. The majority definition was 2000 square feet and smaller.

  6. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    A worthless and sad profession, pot growing.

  7. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    I agree. Imagine selling poison & hurt for a living. Pot growers are as bad a tobacco growers, porno producers and email scam con mailers.

  8. GrowMart
    November 29, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    Oh, neat. A story about pot.

  9. Anonymous
    November 29, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    Totally agree 4:07.

  10. Mr. Nice
    November 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    What’s wrong with porno producers?

    Next you’ll be tryna tell me that folks who run big ass multi story gay orgy parties in SF are somehow bad.

  11. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 9:54 am

    “Pot growers are as bad a tobacco growers,”

    in the United States, 18 percent of all deaths every year are related to smoking tobacco.

    cannabis smoking related deaths: 0

  12. Anonymous
    November 30, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Nonsense.

  13. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 11:19 am

    you should google it.

  14. tra
    November 30, 2010 at 11:24 am

    18 percent seems a bit high to me, but there certainly are many alcohol-related fatalities, and not many, if any, cannabis-related fatalities.

  15. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 11:29 am

    try, “annual causes of death in the united states”

  16. anonymous
    November 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    50% of the 18% smoked weed too.Plus 75% of the 18% drank alcohol.99% of the 18% drank tap water at some point in their lives. Living life will kill you every time,enjoy it while you got it.
    Try growing an acre of cannabis and wait and see what “Doctor Feddie” diagnoses and prescribes.The cure will be worse than the disease.

  17. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    “50% of the 18% smoked weed too.”

    making crap up and denying tobacco smoking related deaths tallied by the CDC. Sad little people.

  18. Anonymous
    November 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Harry is a pothead.

  19. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    whatever… I’m right and you’re wrong. Enjoy your tap water.

  20. Not A Native
    November 30, 2010 at 6:54 pm

    Its hilarious how Harold cherry picks the data.

    First, officials say marijuana is a dangerous Schedule I drug that represents a serious threat to public health. Harold says they’re idiots, he has proof of that too.

    Then, the same officials say misuse of tobacco and alcohol causes health problems. Harold cites them for as being reasonable and objective providers to facts. They’re now geniuses according to Harold.

    Its severe debilitation from addiction that causes nonsense to come from Harold’s keyboard.

  21. Mr. Nice
    November 30, 2010 at 7:52 pm

    Its hilarious how Harold cherry picks the data.

    First, officials say marijuana is a dangerous Schedule I drug that represents a serious threat to public health. Harold says they’re idiots, he has proof of that too.

    Then, the same officials say misuse of tobacco and alcohol causes health problems. Harold cites them for as being reasonable and objective providers to facts. They’re now geniuses according to Harold.

    Its severe debilitation from addiction that causes nonsense to come from Harold’s keyboard.

    It’s it’s not its bro.

    Ain’t the same officials saying tobacco is dangerous as weed is dangerous. Ain’t even the same officials saying tobacco is dangerous now as it was before.

    Some folks misuse tobacco and other folks use tobacco in a way that doesn’t cause health problems… like tobacco spray insecticide. Cool but that still causes major health problems for pests.

  22. Harold h. Greene
    November 30, 2010 at 8:35 pm

    “Its hilarious how Harold cherry picks the data.”

    you don’t refute the data cited but instead call a blog avatar names.

    nice. nonsense, for sure.

  23. Not A Native
    December 1, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Harold, Both data are correct IMO.

    But you hypocritically laud the authorities’ opinions on the dangers of alcohol and tobacco, while calling those same authorities idiots when they similarly assess the public health dangers of pot.

  24. Harold h. Greene
    December 5, 2010 at 10:10 am

    I only cited data. no lauding anything. Tell me, would you, why tobacco and alcohol are legal to consume while marijuana is not? According to the data, there’s no deaths related to the use of cannabis. That of course cannot be said of those other two.

    we spend billions to keep marijuana illegal for what purpose – “it’s public health dangers”? And what are those, please?

    In your answer You must use data – no personal anecdotes about somebody you knew in college who never graduated because they started smoking weed. And you can’t use, Being arrested or shot for participating in illegal activity; or being robbed, shot, beat up or other wise harassed by somebody who may be involved in the marijuana prohibition trade.

  25. Mr. Nice
    December 5, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I only got anecdote. I’ll focus on driving which is a real danger.

    ’83 study of weed driving

    The UK study Influence on Cannabis While Driving.

    Also the DOT-HS-808-065 but I can’t find a fucking link to it on the RITA web site.

    Anyfucknway, these studies show the same shit I’ve observed and made a mental anecdote of. High people never pass, and stay four or five seconds back. They have some problems keeping in the middle of lane going around corners and run over the warning shit in the shoulder all the time but they never cross over the left.

    Fuck those messed up soccer mom roads in Northern Humboldt, drive on the stretch between SoHum and Mendo. You can see the potheads they are smoking as they drive. They get into the fucking far right lane until there is none then are looking for a turnout. I seen more than one head go to the damn coffee/Indian artifact store just because they wanted to let faster vehicles like logging trucks and ’87 Astro Vans pass them. They always take Avenue of the Giants like that was the entire reason they got in the car that morning.

    Contrast that shit with old and fucking stupid drivers. They put their shit on cruise to 40 and act like they don’t know what a fucking turnout is. They will stay in the passing lane and when you go to illegally pass their slow ass on the right, they start fucking going into the right lane. These assholes spend more time on their GPS tryna figure out where the fuck they are than driving. They be all looking at trees in Richardson Grove well motherfucker pull the fuck over and get a campsite.

    Potheads do drive funny but it don’t matter for shit because you get 20 miles ahead of their ’73 Vanagon and they never catch up. Stupid fuckers are a far worse problem because you want to four wheel over their bullshit Prius like this is some kinna redneck monster truck rally.

  26. Harold h. Greene
    December 5, 2010 at 1:30 pm

    “I only got anecdote. I’ll focus on driving which is a real danger.”

    elitist.

  27. Mr. Nice
    December 5, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    elitist.

    melodramatist.

  28. Anonymous
    December 5, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    Mr. Nice = NOT

  29. High Finance
    December 6, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    The Times Standard has a small article this morning, about a driver high on Pot, for the Harold Greene types who say pot never kills.

  30. Harold h. Greene
    December 6, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    you must be talking about the article on climate change on pg. 10.

  31. Not A Native
    December 6, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    Harold can’t refute the harms caused by pot, so he looks around for some other dangerous intoxicants and finds tobacco as a whipping boy to distract attention. Harold kneejerks the druggies who merely point their fingers elsewhere when challenged about the obvious and clear dangers of pot.

    The dangers of tobacco don’t excuse, mitigate, or reduce the dangers of pot any more than the dangers of tobacco justify the dangers of methamphetamine.

    Tobacco and pot have nothing to do with each other, its stupid to compare them. The harmful effects of both have been documented, though tobacco has been studied much more extensively.

    Harold cites the tobacco studies as proof of the harms of tobacco. But when the same resarchers find harms in pot, Harold denies their results. Its OK by me if Harold is prejudiced, but that has nothing to do with scientific knowledge. He’s just puting up a whipping boy to turn a blind eye to the problems of pot.

    Here is a report of pot harms, from the same researchers who found tobacco harms.

  32. Harold h. Greene
    December 6, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    “Tobacco and pot have nothing to do with each other, its stupid to compare them. The harmful effects of both have been documented, though tobacco has been studied much more extensively.”

    well, it does when you’re talking about federal policies regarding the consumption of tobacco, and the practical outcomes supporting the continued prohibition of marijuana.

    “The dangers of tobacco don’t excuse, mitigate, or reduce the dangers of pot …”

    no one has made that claim but you, in this thread.

  33. Not A Native
    December 6, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    Well OK Harold, tell us YOUR assessment of the dangers of pot…

  34. Harold h. Greene
    December 6, 2010 at 6:07 pm

    a hell a of lot of people are looking at employment retraining once the stuff is finally and absolutely decriminalized.

  35. Funnygirl
    December 6, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Retraining? Nursery workers at Miller Farms or Piersons?

  36. tra
    December 6, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    In contrast to tobacco, smoking cannabis has not been found to cause lung cancer. It can cause bronchitis, and maybe emphysema…but those problems can be avoided by eating cannabis food products rather than smoking. Vaporizers may also reduce the potential for damage to the lungs, though they have probably not been in use long enough, or among enough people, for a definitive study to have been done yet. (Perhaps there is a study of this sort going on right now? I hope so.)

    There seems to be lot of anecdote-based belief suggesting that cannabis use causes a lack of motivation, and even some research showing a correlation in some users — but it’s not clear whether the cause is being confused with the effect. In other words, it may be that the correlation is mostly due to people who are already lacking in motivation (in some cases because of depression and/or anxiety) becoming overusers of cannabis, rather than the other way around.

    In any event, cannabis, like most any substance can be overused (abused) and a small minority of cannabis users fit this category. However, even the harms associated with this overuse are not very severe compared with the harms caused by other substances that are already legal, like alcohol and tobacco.

    Meanwhile, the serious harms resulting from the Prohibition of cannabis are much more severe and really quite indisputable: The violence associated with the black market (including home invasions, drug deal disputes, etc.), the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of Americans (which involve massive costs for imprisonment, parole and probation supervision, the lost wages and productivity of those who are imprisoned, not to mention the effects on the families of those who are imprisoned). There are also the massive costs to law enforcement and the judicial system, and of course the loss of potential tax revenues from the product if it was legal (both of which also mean that less money is available to address more serious crimes, as well as to provide for other societal needs).

    The bottom line:

    Cannabis is a mildly euphoric herbal drug that is not physically addictive, essentially impossible to overdose on, and is used responsibly and in moderation by millions of Americans.

    Prohibitionism, on the other hand, is an extremely harmful and addictive political narcotic that wastes vasts sums of money, reduces individual freedom and generates violence, without accomplishing anything constructive in the process.

  37. Mr. Nice
    December 6, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Look at some the research papers they cite in that NIDA bullshit. Like this shit.

    “Conclusions: Our results may have been affected by selection
    bias or error in measuring lifetime exposure and confounder
    histories; but they suggest that the association of these cancers with marijuana, even long-term or heavy use, is not strong and may be below practically detectable limits.”

    Those NIDA goofballs cite that research but they don’t use it in their pamphlet. They say one thing and cite some different shit. This fools most folks since they can’t tell the difference between bullshit pamphlets with actual research.

    Fuckn NAN. Try again.

  38. Anonymous
    December 6, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    Not physically addictive ? Then why do so many risk so much to keep smoking the crap ? I know people who say smoking the weed is not addictive. They have proven it by quitting. Many times. And they’ll quit again tomorrow or maybe next week……. maybe.

  39. tra
    December 6, 2010 at 10:42 pm

    “Not physically addictive ? Then why do so many risk so much to keep smoking the crap ?”

    Well, according to the literature, cannabis can be somewhat psychologically addictive, so for at least some people I suppose that’s your answer.

    But for the great majority of users, they simply don’t agree that it’s “crap,” so they’re willing to assume some level of risk in exchange for the benefits. Of course for the average user, they are only risking a violation or at most a misdemeanor, and then only in the unlikely event that they are caught. And in California, of course, the risk is pretty much non-existent for those with a Prop 215 medical recommendation from a doctor.

  40. Harold h. Greene
    December 7, 2010 at 7:26 am

    “Not physically addictive ? Then why do so many risk so much to keep smoking the crap ?”

    because by weight it worth more than gold.

  41. Mr. Nice
    December 7, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    Tea is supposedly not that addictive and it is supposedly just any old tea with caffeine will do it but I ain’t about to start drinking none of that Stash/Tazo shit and damn straight I keep buying oolong for hella more than folks in China prolly pay for the same goddamn batch.

    I drink tea every day too so I guess I’m technically addicted but I don’t give a fuck about it and if you think that drinking mad tea is bad then you can go eat a dick and hook up with the Mormons or some shit.

    For serious tho I don’t think weed is that addictive it is just good as hell so heads keep buying it. It’s not like crack or some shit except for Green Crack and I don’t even really like that bullshit ass strain that much, give me Trainwreck any day.

  42. High Finance
    December 8, 2010 at 10:39 am

    But then you don’t risk going to jail for drinking tea or growing your own tea.

  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