Home > Eureka California, Humboldt County, marijuana > Up to three years for 185 pounds

Up to three years for 185 pounds

In contrast to the New Orleans fellow facing a life sentence for two pounds of weed, Jacob Adam Buck, 29, of Eureka will get up to three years for 185.  Press Release below.

Guilty Plea in Marijuana Case

Jacob Adam Buck, 29, of Eureka, pled guilty today in Humboldt Superior Court to possession of marijuana for sale, possessing of over $100,000 related to the sales of marijuana and possession of a firearm.

On August 22, 2010, Buck was stopped by Oregon State Police for reckless driving. When questioned, Buck told the trooper that he had picked up his two passengers from the Portland airport and was driving them back to his home in Eureka. During a search of the vehicle the Oregon police located false identifications for all three. The trooper was suspicious of Buck’s explanation and contacted Humboldt County law enforcement. Further investigation prompted local officers to conduct surveillance at Buck’s house where they observed activity consistent with illegal drug activity. A subsequent search of Buck’s house uncovered approximately 185 pounds of marijuana, $261,122 in cash, numerous scales, vacuum food sealers, packaging materials and firearms in the residence. The investigation revealed that Buck and others from Minnesota came to Humboldt County to process marijuana and then transported it back to Minnesota for distribution.

Buck faces up to three years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced on June 8, 2011 by Superior Court Judge W. Bruce Watson.

The case was prosecuted by Maggie Fleming and the defendant was represented by M.C. Bruce.

  1. Ben
    May 10, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Welcome to Humboldt County.

  2. Charlie Bean
    May 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    The problem is, no matter where you stand on this issue, it only costs the tax-payers money to support the prisons. Prisons that are more than likely full of individuals arrested for minor drugs charges.

    Imagine a three-strikes for marijuana, who does it hurt?

    Our laws dealing with drugs need to change, especially minor drugs such as marijuana. Other laws need to change in dealing with individuals convicted of use and selling of drugs through better mental health services. I believe improvd mental health counseling and funding will corect much of the problems we have wth drugs.

    Besides improved mental health services, just legalize it and if someone wants to screw up their lives, let them and do not provide public aid.

  3. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    May 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Good points Charlie Bean. It seems there exists a corrections facility population by offense report that I remember which suggested 80% of the inmate population is for light drug offenses, non threatening types.

    Is it yet another case of government trying to use people to create government positions and sub-structures of agencies. Sad to think so many employed persons are making their career earnings on the abuse of a great number of slaves behind bars………

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  4. Anonymous
    May 10, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    This is a disgusting outcome for a criminal.

  5. High Finance
    May 11, 2011 at 7:45 am

    Another drug dealer goes to jail.

    Our society is better off now that this four time loser is gone.

  6. rex1223
    May 11, 2011 at 8:20 am

    He got what he deserved since he probably has not paid any taxes for education, our police, roads, firemen, etc.. Under the table while we work away but reaping the benefits of a responsible society is criminal!

  7. neomoderate
    May 11, 2011 at 8:23 am

    If it’s not worth $50,000-$75,000 a year to keep these folks in prison, they should stay out. Prisons should be to keep dangerous criminals out of society, not to punish petty crimes, because it’s been shown that strict sentencing laws don’t affect crime rates.

    Just think, for the price of keeping one grower in prison, you could hire a teacher, a new professor, a police officer. Which is the better deal?

  8. High Hater
    May 11, 2011 at 8:24 am

    I agree with Hi Fi. We have more people in prison than China but we need to send many, many more to prison. Because many Americans are bad, especially liberals who support abortion. I want all of them in jail. Prisons are also good for the economy. They create lots of well paying jobs. Well, I mean PERS early retirement loafer jobs. Darn! Hoisted by my own circular logic.

  9. Plain Jane
    May 11, 2011 at 8:34 am

    How much does it cost per prisoner in states like LA who have prison work programs (a huge majority of prisoners participate) when the prisoners’ wages go to the prison to pay for “room and board” and the remainder to support their families, if any? I found information that the cost per prisoner per year can vary between $8 and 45K a year, depending on the state, the work programs and how much prison personnel is paid.

  10. Anonymous
    May 11, 2011 at 8:36 am

    In contrast to the New Orleans story, this appears to be the guy’s first arrest. Also, even in Humboldt County, people do not want drug houses in their neighborhoods. If you could somehow force the sale of the drug house, then I wouldn’t mind a lighter sentence. As is, it’s too bad for his neighbors that he got a slap on the wrist. I feel sorry for them, especially any kids living on that block.

  11. anonymous
    May 11, 2011 at 8:41 am

    8:20 says: “He got what he deserved since he probably has not paid any taxes for education, our police, roads, firemen, etc..”

    You mean like GE, and the other freeloading corporations? You’re saying let’s put corporate thieves in prison? I agree.

  12. May 11, 2011 at 8:47 am

    He will not go to state prison. He will serve about 20% of his sentence in county jail in Eureka. The he will be on the streets again. That is 7 and a half months. Personally, I would rather see a “real” criminal take up that jail space for 7 1/2 months, but that’s just me…right…?

  13. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 9:15 am

    I disagree Mark. I would classify of 200K, a firearm, fake ID’s, and 185 pounds of weed as a real criminal. If you know much about the local culture, you know that this type of slanging is real deal crime. Let’s not confuse Jacob with the Mom and Pop’s processing their 5 pounds per cycle. There is serious crime associated with this level of dealing. The fact that he was conducting his dealings on this scale and with a firearm makes a 7 1/2 month sentence and a felony count seem reasonable to me.
    What do you think would be appropriate Mark?

  14. Anonymous
    May 11, 2011 at 9:41 am

    The GE-doesn’t-pay-taxes thing is a myth. The truth is a bit murkier.

  15. rex1223
    May 11, 2011 at 9:45 am

    Dear anonymous, yes everyone who short changes society and makes a dollar from something that is illegal or simply by greed. He is no different than GE or Wal-mart. He is a greedy little kid who doesn’t contribute to society like other responsible community member do. Please don’t try to skirt the issue that a corporation with 100 executives skirting 200 million in profit is any different than this guy skirting 200 thousand. Do the math, its the same!

  16. Random Guy
    May 11, 2011 at 10:45 am

    “who short changes society and makes a dollar from something that is illegal or simply by greed.”

    Like law enforcement, the judicial system, the prison system, the reform system…all collecting marijuana money and still footing us with the bill for overhead.

  17. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Law enforcement uses confiscated funds for their own programs. They are a public entity so any funds they confiscate and use would ideally be used to pay for things that service the tax payers.
    How do the others make money off of marijuana?

  18. Anon
    May 11, 2011 at 11:29 am

    Armed MJ growers are dangerous idiots. But far more murders occur between family members in Humboldt County. It’s the alcoholics and pharma-abusers committing the majority of drug crimes.

    Most taxable U.S. corporations don’t pay any taxes and their windfall never trickled down like the local benefits from the fast-spending growers of Humboldt County.

  19. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 11:56 am

    11:29, nothing you said is factually based off of anything. How do you know the “pharma-abusers” are the ones committing the crimes? Give me a break.
    And, despite the fact that I partially agree that corporations don’t pay their fair share, here’s an example against what you just said. Rob Arkley’s business, is a corporation. His business, his person, and his employees all pay state and local taxes. Those taxes fund things like police, schools, etc. It’s a corporation. We benefit from their taxes. Same with CostCo and WinCo and the other corporations in our communities.
    What the is your point in relation to anything being said regarding the marijuana bust?

  20. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Are you actually suggesting, Teacher, that the taxes paid by the employees of a corporation are taxes on the corporation?

    That would be a new one to me.

    Using that logic, I guess the government pays itself a lot of taxes by paying government workers.

  21. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Mitch, stick with me here, in response to Anon’s comparison to corporations windfalls not trickling down and benefitting our local community like dope grower money, I responded by pointing out that not only do our local corporations pay taxes that benefit the community, but their employees, who are employed because of the corporations, also pay taxes that directly benefit the local community. Thus, our local corporations do more for our community than our local dope growers.
    I’m not trying to defend all corporations or corporate tax breaks so we don’t even need to go there.

  22. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    And yes Mitch, taxes generated from employees of corporations can be seen as a positive benefit of the corporations. Without the corporation, the person would not have a job and the community would not have the tax revenue.

  23. High Finance
    May 11, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    “GE paid no taxes” is a lie as the link posted at 9.41am would explain to anybody who really wants any facts.

    But in reality, corporations pay no taxes. They simply pass the tax along with higher prices for their goods and/or lower pay & benefits for their employees.

    It is nothing more than a cynical game meant to appease the anti-corporation zealots and the wealth-envy crowd.

  24. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Hi Fi is right. Employees don’t pay taxes either. They pass the taxes up to their employers by demanding a higher wage.

  25. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    OK, Teacher. Let’s spend a little time on your idea.

    What percentage of a corporation’s employees move to an area because of the employment opportunity? If they require services (fire department, police department, road maintenance, etc…), are those COSTS of the corporation? If not, why are the taxes they pay BENEFITS from the corporation?

    What about when people leave an area because a corporation has shipped jobs that had been in the area overseas? Does their departure mean that the corporation should be credited for reducing local expenses?

    Don’t bother answering, I’m pretty much done.

  26. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    Employees pay taxes and that is beautiful part of having employers. They enable the employee to pay taxes. It is cyclical Mitch.

  27. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    You completely changed what you firs asked after I answered that. Care to comment on our first topic?
    As for your second line of questioning, I have no idea what you are talking about. I guess that means you win that one. Good luck with the book donations.

  28. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Teacher,

    Tell me what our first topic was and I’ll gladly reply.

  29. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    You asked, are taxes paid by employees of a corporation taxes paid by the corporation? I responded in earnest, and you went off on a different topic.
    I don’t understand your overall point. Do you believe that all corporations are bad and we need to get rid of them?
    Note: I don’t need the examples of the bad corporations or how they withhold billions through tax loopholes- I understand that and it pisses me off too but we’ve talked about that excessively on this site.

  30. Teacher
    May 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm

    Well said Mitch. Anytime you start talking too much it allows a pretty damning insight into how shallow and poorly put together your opinions are. I’d stick to kissing up to H and parroting PJ. It suits you and does well to disguise your shortcomings.

  31. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm

    I apologize for not noticing your 12:44 post.

    My point is that it is incorrect to say that taxes paid by employees of a corporation are taxes paid by the corporation.

    If your point is that corporations have employees, and that they issue paychecks to those employees, and that the government taxes the pay of those employees, I entirely agree.

    As it happens, I don’t believe that all corporations are evil. I do think that the corporation as an economic concept is a big mistake, because it diffuses responsibility.

    The shareholders, the supposed owners, are a huge group dominated by large funds, which in turn have other holders. The executives are paid to get returns for the shareholders. The Board of Directors supposedly controls the executives, but I haven’t seen that work. You end up with this enormous structure that may have wonderful people in all its roles, but that is mandated by law to maximize earnings, everything else be damned. It’s a recipe for disaster.

    My complaint, though, is usually with bigness, not just with corporations. Big government can be just as bad as big business; either way you end up with an insulated group of extremely comfortable people at the top, who stop caring about the rest of the community because they are no longer mixing with it.

    The worst situation is when big business ends up taking over big government through unlimited campaign contributions.

    Now back to kissing up, parroting, and disguising shortcomings. I’ve gotten behind.

  32. Mitch
    May 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Heraldo, you’re so awesome cool! Awk! I went to college!

  33. High Finance
    May 11, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Why isn’t the worst (or tied for worst) situation is when big unions ends up taking over big government through unlimited campaign contributions Mitch ?

  34. What Now
    May 11, 2011 at 9:22 pm

    “High Finance says:
    “It is nothing more than a cynical game meant to appease the anti-corporation zealots and the wealth-envy crowd.”
    Class warfare in code.
    What a sickeningly diseased prick you are, HighlyFried.

    “Why isn’t the worst (or tied for worst) situation is when big unions ends up taking over big government through unlimited campaign contributions Mitch ?”

    HighlyFried proves once again he’s chased the white rabbit down the hole and will forever be lost in a field of mirrors.

  35. High Finance
    May 12, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Do you ever post anything of substance What Now ?

    You have proven over and over again that you are incapable of independent thought.

  36. Plain Jane
    May 12, 2011 at 9:12 am

    Says HiFi the King of Fox parrots. :D

  37. Teacher
    May 12, 2011 at 9:32 am

    I’m interested in your point HiFi. You believe that the worst situation (for our country?) occurs when big unions and/or big government controls things? You think we are better off if big corporations control things?

  38. Mitch
    May 12, 2011 at 10:39 am

    Hi Fi,

    Unions have as their purpose ensuring fair treatment and wages for their worker-members. As unions get larger, the possibility that a union’s leadership will get detached from its membership does grow.

    Unions are not perfect. If the wobblies hadn’t been suppressed, the union model might have grown into a powerful unified political force for all people who work for a living. But the wobblies were too frightening to the power structure, so we ended up with the AFL and the CIO. The problem with the “job classification” model of unions is that it potentially pits workers against one another, as we are now seeing with private sector employees being manipulated into thinking public sector employees are getting “too good a deal.” From the point of view of the power structure, that is why this union model is ideal.

    Large unions have the same potential problems as other large bureaucracies.

    However, unions are not capable of retaining earnings and building empires off the retained earnings. Capitalist corporations and their executives are extremely capable of doing that. Just look around.

    Unions also tend to have their members’ interests at heart. In economic theory, corporations have their owners interests at heart, but in 21st century reality the ownership is so diffuse that the typical corporation worries most about the interests of its top executives and largest Wall Street shareholders.

  39. High Finance
    May 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Mitch, unions are a very necessary part of our business world. They forced many positive changes in the work world last century that we all benefit from today.

    You are not going to find me bashing unions on a philosophical basis.

    However, neither am I going to put them on any pedestal like the left does. They are not there to “ensure fair treatment and wages”. The problem with that sentence is the word “fair”.

    They exist today for one reason and one reason only. To maximise wages and benefits for their members with less work and more workplace power. Period.

    I do not consider that a bad thing, it is just their job. In a normal negotiating environment there is some semblance of a balance of power between them & management.

    But the unions are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars over the years trying to elect Democrats because they are community minded. They want to turn the laws to give them a bigger advantage. They are buying politicians in the same exact way as the worst corporation is.

    Any attempt to limit corporation political spending without limiting unions doing the same is nothing other than hardcore partisan politics that give politics a bad name.

  40. High Finance
    May 12, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Teacher, I am not in favor of having big corporations “control things” anymore or any less than I am in favor of big unions or big government control things.

    But there is a big difference between the three. Corporations want to be free to earn more profits, big unions want more money for their members. Big government OTOH wants more power to control our lives.

  41. Mr. Military-Industrial-Government
    May 12, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” -Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

  42. Mitch
    May 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Hi Fi,

    We partially agree.

    Unions do exist to get the most they can for their members. Without them, wage negotiations would be a continuous war between corporations (big, powerful, able to draw on reserves) and individuals (small, with only their labor to sell in order to eat). Without unions, the minimum wage would be the universal wage, except without unions, there’d be no minimum wage.

    Many people who aren’t in unions don’t realize how much the union movement has benefited every working person. Do you think non-union shops would be paying union wages for any reason other than to keep the unions from getting organized at their locations.

    I would love to see unions focus more on defending working people in general; I’m sure most union members would like that as well. As I said, when the union movement was once heading in that direction, the power structure went to war against the IWW.

  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