26 ms·

Legal Marijuana Is Almost Here, If Only Pot Farmers Were on Board

120 points by zonotope 9y ago

tsomctl 9y ago
The marijuana market is rapidly changing in Northern California to benefit the large scale growers. It's extremely hard for small growers to sell just a few pounds of weed. I know Garberville is facing a small recession right now. Anyway, I'm tired of being nervous driving in my forests. I've heard that you really don't want to annoy the Bulgarians living in South East Humboldt.
mindslight 9y ago
A predictable power play, born from creating a whole new legal regime instead of simply just scrapping the unjust laws. The marijuana legalese-ization movement lost its legitimacy the minute it started kowtowing to corruption with that whole "tax it" refrain.
- i_am_nomad 9y ago
  Are you suggesting that cannabis should be tax-free? What kind of corruption has emerged as a result of taxation on cannabis?
  - mindslight 9y ago
    If marijuana were to be taxed at the rate of say lettuce with accounting handled by the same enforcement mechanisms, then the argument could be made that it was merely being subject to the same imperfect system we use to fund all public projects. But instead, we get the corruption I referred to - the creation of an entirely new administrative and enforcement apparatus which becomes its own justification. The dynamic still ultimately involves the power of the state telling individuals how they can and cannot aeffect their selves, with the only change being that the state is now profiting from selling indulgences.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      Similar to other "sin" taxes. Lettuce is not taxed at all in California but the fork to eat it is at over 10% in some locations. Using taxes to control behavior is seen as wrong by some, but they are not likely to be in political office.
    - lovich 9y ago
      I don't think the legalize movement as a whole was working from a position that any input from the state into someone's life is immoral. That's a perfectly fine position to have but it's not like they were being hypocritical as a movement.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I expect that if the proposition put to vote was simply to removing any existing laws around marijuana growing, sale, and possession, there's no way in hell it would have passed. We all think of CA as this true-blue state, a bastion of progressive thought. But once you get out of the SF bay area and LA, you see a lot of red. MJ isn't lettuce. It's a drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are drugs (yes, I know they have different effects and safety factors; that's irrelevant). It would seem unsurprising that it would be regulated in similar ways. If your position is that tobacco, alcohol, etc. shouldn't be regulated at all, then ok, that's a fair position to have, but it's an entirely unrealistic one to expect the populace of any state in the US to get behind.
    - briandear 9y ago
      Well said! Differential taxation based on some social or moral argument, to me, is a violation of liberty. The government ought not be in the business of using taxes to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do. Government shouldn’t be dictating winners and losers — that should be up to the individual. Every product ought to be taxed identically.
      - tptacek 9y ago
        In order to make this argument coherent, you'd need to oppose as well a whole lot of additional commercial regulation, such as the kind forbidding the sale of food unfit for human consumption, fake medicine, cars that explode in fender benders, &c. If the people through their government can elect to forbid the sale of products altogether, surely it's less a breach of liberty for them to elect instead to add a surcharge to account for the externalities of those goods.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    I think the problem is rather that with the need for taxation you also have to introduce mechanisms to check if taxation actually happens properly and with that comes a whole rat tail of bureaucracy and regulation complicating the process for everybody. In theory, exemptions can be made, like only taxing people who grow for commercial use while not taxing people who grow for their private use. But such a system is prone to abuse and thus needs lots of control and enforcement.
  - mstodd 9y ago
    I certainly think it shouldn't be taxed, or at least not more than any other plant. And it should be off the books entirely, not "legalized".
- mstodd 9y ago
  It's really sad what citizens got when marijuana got legalized. Just more laws telling you how you're allowed to live your life, and drug taxes finding schools.
dogruck 9y ago
We are supposed to feel sympathetic for growers who operated illegally and now struggle to comply with new laws? All while other operators are complying with the same laws?
- kakarot 9y ago
  Do you recognize that these prohibition laws were unjust? If they were, then what does someone's defiance of those laws have to do with anything? Shouldn't they in fact be praised for standing up to oppression? Or do you think these laws were just after all?
  - jajuanandj 9y ago
    "standing up to oppression" is not a "get out of being an asshole free" card
    - kakarot 9y ago
      Okay? And where does the asshole part come in?
      - kelnos 9y ago
        A great many of the illegal pot farmers damage public (and private) lands, screw with the water supply, pollute rivers, and leave trash behind. Not to mention growing country has a higher rate of violent crime than even LA County. That's where the asshole part comes in. (All of this is right from the article.)
        kakarot 9y ago
        Part of reading comprehension is understanding the source of what you are reading. In this case, we have police officers who indisputably have bias against legal marijuana and who lack empathy towards those who see little benefit in paying an essentially criminal amount of taxes and adhering to overbearing regulation (not all of it is overbearing -- it's important to look after mother nature), framing the conversation in a way that serves their agenda. I don't see many actual numbers being thrown around in the article. It's largely speculation on behalf of the police officers. If you wish to convince me, you will need a less subjective source, for example actual well-executed studies on the negative impacts of pot farmers in California, as well as literature proving the necessity of such high taxes and regulation by the government.
the_evacuator 9y ago
Article doesn't really highlight the environmental hooliganism practiced by these guys. They rip up a meadow in a national forest, or on BLM land, and they irrigate like crazy people, eroding everything rapidly, and they drive up and down the mountainside in their giant pickups. When they are done they leave everything including their trash and their toilets. When ordinary people go motorcycling in these public lands the growers chase them, shoot at them, and set booby traps. The whole thing is a public menace. I think with legalization should come some kind of harsh regime for these pirates. Ruining public lands should be a serious felony.
- bigzen 9y ago
  Do you have further reading on these events? I agree with you 100% but I would argue that these growers are probably some of the lesser evils facing our public lands.
  - jmspring 9y ago
    Pretty common occurrence - http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AM0C3 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AM0C3
  - jameskegel 9y ago
    I'd rather run across an old composting toilet while biking than an old meth lab, so you have a point
  - harlanlewis 9y ago
    You might be surprised by the scale. I know a few folks doing water management in California, and they've all independently brought up the exacerbating effects of unmonitored but significant water usage by illegal farms during the last few years of drought. Don't have a link handy, though.
  - the_evacuator 9y ago
    Search for "trespass grow" to find a lot of magazine articles and videos on the subject. I may shake my head at clear-cutting and overgrazing but I'll say that I've never been chased off public land by a rancher nor fired upon by lumberjacks. The marijuana growers are ... unique.
stephengillie 9y ago
> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market: marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California. Interstate cannabis transport legalization appears to be the hurdle to California's reaping tax benefits from the industry. How will legalization in a few New England states impact Northern California's economy?
gozur88 9y ago
Legal weed is not "almost here". It's still a schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal level, and in theory you can spend a year in a federal penitentiary for possession of any amount. That's what I'd like to see changed. This legal twilight zone isn't good for anybody.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  I'm not sure what our government is thinking. Police in 2016 used a "military helicopter to descend on an 81-year-old Grandmother's home to seize a single marijuana plant." "Mr Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges." So, give up your fourth amendment rights, or else? For having 1 marijuana plant? Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/national-guard-and-police-in-military-style-helicopter-descend-on-81-year-old-s-home-to-seize-one-a7348666.html
- sputr 9y ago
  Two things: 1. Legal weed is not almost here because of the 68' treaty that strictly prohibits it. That's the reason we see all of these "decriminalized" and "tolerated" scenarios. No one has yet to decide to just ignore the (very tiny) part of the full text that covers cannabis and no one is willing to step away from the rest of the text. Canada is showing signs they might do it, which will trigger a landslide, but at the moment that's only speculation. My country would have passed legalization months ago if not for this treaty :/. So the USA screwed everybody in 68' and they are still doing it. 2. The twilight zone is good for exactly one group of people: illegal dealers and growers. Imagine: the police don't prosecute you as aggressively anymore (or at all), the populous treats it as a legal substance, that's still incredibly popular (funny, it's culturally accepted, but still an act of defiance against the authority) ... and you have no taxes because you still can't buy it legally. I've personally seen dealers agents masquerading as pro-canabis campaigners derail political alliances that would have made realistic progress towards legalization.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    It's good for massive companies positioning themselves to monopolize the legal market when it emerges, bad for everyone else.
KingMachiavelli 9y ago
> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. Here lies the unique situation in California; even before legalization in California, it was the home of not just it's black market cannabis industry but it was already a supplier to other parts of the country. It seems then that state level legalization will not be able to fully replace the illegal cannabis industry in California. This is a really interesting problem since other legal states are inclined to not push for legal interstate trade of cannabis. If MJ was legal federally, what framework for trade would states be inclined to support? It seems it wouldn't be in most states favor to want trade since CA and a few large producers (or early legalizers) would capture the market. Perhaps weed that crosses state lines would be taxed in both states allowing states with shortages like NV to import weed initially while still giving local growers the advantage of a lower total tax rate.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Just look at how alcohol is taxed. This is a solved problem.
knowThySelfx 9y ago
I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much about weed abuse. Though we've come across the problem of alcoholism in those days too.
- knowThySelfx 9y ago
  Who is having an agenda here?
  - posterboy 9y ago
    I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.
    - knowThySelfx 9y ago
      I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.
    - giancarlostoro 9y ago
      Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.
      - knowThySelfx 9y ago
        Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes. Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.
      - int_19h 9y ago
Animats 9y ago
A friend of mine runs a farm bureau office in a rural Northern California county. She has to deal with pot growers, who need some of the same services regular farmers do. Not fun.
- ikeyany 9y ago
  You'd think it's because it's illegal that it attracts 'seedy' people. But if it weren't so taboo?
neoecos 9y ago
I don't want to be rude about this, but that's exactly the same thing all other `producer` country had to carry with. The problem of legalization, is not just about the use, is about the whole chain. I've seen this exactly things in my country, Colombia, and plus the social issue of mafias and drug dealing are my only reasons, personally (i don't encourage to not do it or judge people who just don't care about it), against it's use.
X86BSD 9y ago
Here is an interesting thought about legalization. In Kansas where they produce more wheat than anywhere in the world, what do you think would happen if Marijuana became to legal to grow here? Farmers struggling to survive on bushel pricing of wheat would move all their land to Pot because of the money. Wheat availability would crash through the floor. A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Presumably some more natural price equilibrium would be established.
- briandear 9y ago
  > A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high. Lol. “High.” However seriously if wheat prices rose, more farmers would grow wheat and prices would return to equilibrium — people being paid subsidies to grow nothing would suddenly find it profitable to grow wheat. Supply and demand works. The real problem is that farming is so heavily subsidized that actual supply and demand doesn’t always result in correct prices.
- GFischer 9y ago
  You do know there are other countries that can produce wheat, a lot more wheat than Kansas, for instance Argentina (currently produces twice as much wheat as Kansas and that's after they went way down because they switched to soybeans) or my own country Uruguay. If there was scarcity of wheat, be assured we'd cover it. BTW, we can cover scarcity of pot as well :) (it's legal here)
gumboshoes 9y ago
In other words: "New York Times, an establishment newspaper, lays down the initial arguments that will eventually lead to marijuana farming being dominated by large corporations."

120 points by zonotope 9y ago

The marijuana market is rapidly changing in Northern California to benefit the large scale growers. It's extremely hard for small growers to sell just a few pounds of weed. I know Garberville is facing a small recession right now. Anyway, I'm tired of being nervous driving in my forests. I've heard that you really don't want to annoy the Bulgarians living in South East Humboldt.

mindslight 9y ago

A predictable power play, born from creating a whole new legal regime instead of simply just scrapping the unjust laws. The marijuana legalese-ization movement lost its legitimacy the minute it started kowtowing to corruption with that whole "tax it" refrain.

i_am_nomad 9y ago
Are you suggesting that cannabis should be tax-free? What kind of corruption has emerged as a result of taxation on cannabis?
- mindslight 9y ago
  If marijuana were to be taxed at the rate of say lettuce with accounting handled by the same enforcement mechanisms, then the argument could be made that it was merely being subject to the same imperfect system we use to fund all public projects. But instead, we get the corruption I referred to - the creation of an entirely new administrative and enforcement apparatus which becomes its own justification. The dynamic still ultimately involves the power of the state telling individuals how they can and cannot aeffect their selves, with the only change being that the state is now profiting from selling indulgences.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Similar to other "sin" taxes. Lettuce is not taxed at all in California but the fork to eat it is at over 10% in some locations. Using taxes to control behavior is seen as wrong by some, but they are not likely to be in political office.
  - lovich 9y ago
    I don't think the legalize movement as a whole was working from a position that any input from the state into someone's life is immoral. That's a perfectly fine position to have but it's not like they were being hypocritical as a movement.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I expect that if the proposition put to vote was simply to removing any existing laws around marijuana growing, sale, and possession, there's no way in hell it would have passed. We all think of CA as this true-blue state, a bastion of progressive thought. But once you get out of the SF bay area and LA, you see a lot of red. MJ isn't lettuce. It's a drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are drugs (yes, I know they have different effects and safety factors; that's irrelevant). It would seem unsurprising that it would be regulated in similar ways. If your position is that tobacco, alcohol, etc. shouldn't be regulated at all, then ok, that's a fair position to have, but it's an entirely unrealistic one to expect the populace of any state in the US to get behind.
  - briandear 9y ago
    Well said! Differential taxation based on some social or moral argument, to me, is a violation of liberty. The government ought not be in the business of using taxes to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do. Government shouldn’t be dictating winners and losers — that should be up to the individual. Every product ought to be taxed identically.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      In order to make this argument coherent, you'd need to oppose as well a whole lot of additional commercial regulation, such as the kind forbidding the sale of food unfit for human consumption, fake medicine, cars that explode in fender benders, &c. If the people through their government can elect to forbid the sale of products altogether, surely it's less a breach of liberty for them to elect instead to add a surcharge to account for the externalities of those goods.
- freeflight 9y ago
  I think the problem is rather that with the need for taxation you also have to introduce mechanisms to check if taxation actually happens properly and with that comes a whole rat tail of bureaucracy and regulation complicating the process for everybody. In theory, exemptions can be made, like only taxing people who grow for commercial use while not taxing people who grow for their private use. But such a system is prone to abuse and thus needs lots of control and enforcement.
- mstodd 9y ago
  I certainly think it shouldn't be taxed, or at least not more than any other plant. And it should be off the books entirely, not "legalized".
mstodd 9y ago
It's really sad what citizens got when marijuana got legalized. Just more laws telling you how you're allowed to live your life, and drug taxes finding schools.

dogruck 9y ago

We are supposed to feel sympathetic for growers who operated illegally and now struggle to comply with new laws? All while other operators are complying with the same laws?

kakarot 9y ago
Do you recognize that these prohibition laws were unjust? If they were, then what does someone's defiance of those laws have to do with anything? Shouldn't they in fact be praised for standing up to oppression? Or do you think these laws were just after all?
- jajuanandj 9y ago
  "standing up to oppression" is not a "get out of being an asshole free" card
  - kakarot 9y ago
    Okay? And where does the asshole part come in?
    - kelnos 9y ago
      A great many of the illegal pot farmers damage public (and private) lands, screw with the water supply, pollute rivers, and leave trash behind. Not to mention growing country has a higher rate of violent crime than even LA County. That's where the asshole part comes in. (All of this is right from the article.)
      - kakarot 9y ago
        Part of reading comprehension is understanding the source of what you are reading. In this case, we have police officers who indisputably have bias against legal marijuana and who lack empathy towards those who see little benefit in paying an essentially criminal amount of taxes and adhering to overbearing regulation (not all of it is overbearing -- it's important to look after mother nature), framing the conversation in a way that serves their agenda. I don't see many actual numbers being thrown around in the article. It's largely speculation on behalf of the police officers. If you wish to convince me, you will need a less subjective source, for example actual well-executed studies on the negative impacts of pot farmers in California, as well as literature proving the necessity of such high taxes and regulation by the government.

the_evacuator 9y ago

Article doesn't really highlight the environmental hooliganism practiced by these guys. They rip up a meadow in a national forest, or on BLM land, and they irrigate like crazy people, eroding everything rapidly, and they drive up and down the mountainside in their giant pickups. When they are done they leave everything including their trash and their toilets. When ordinary people go motorcycling in these public lands the growers chase them, shoot at them, and set booby traps. The whole thing is a public menace. I think with legalization should come some kind of harsh regime for these pirates. Ruining public lands should be a serious felony.

bigzen 9y ago
Do you have further reading on these events? I agree with you 100% but I would argue that these growers are probably some of the lesser evils facing our public lands.
- jmspring 9y ago
  Pretty common occurrence - http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AM0C3 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1AM0C3
- jameskegel 9y ago
  I'd rather run across an old composting toilet while biking than an old meth lab, so you have a point
- harlanlewis 9y ago
  You might be surprised by the scale. I know a few folks doing water management in California, and they've all independently brought up the exacerbating effects of unmonitored but significant water usage by illegal farms during the last few years of drought. Don't have a link handy, though.
- the_evacuator 9y ago
  Search for "trespass grow" to find a lot of magazine articles and videos on the subject. I may shake my head at clear-cutting and overgrazing but I'll say that I've never been chased off public land by a rancher nor fired upon by lumberjacks. The marijuana growers are ... unique.

stephengillie 9y ago

> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. In part, that is because of the huge incentive to stay in the black market: marijuana on the East Coast sells for several times more than in California. Interstate cannabis transport legalization appears to be the hurdle to California's reaping tax benefits from the industry. How will legalization in a few New England states impact Northern California's economy?

gozur88 9y ago

Legal weed is not "almost here". It's still a schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal level, and in theory you can spend a year in a federal penitentiary for possession of any amount. That's what I'd like to see changed. This legal twilight zone isn't good for anybody.

wallace_f 9y ago
I'm not sure what our government is thinking. Police in 2016 used a "military helicopter to descend on an 81-year-old Grandmother's home to seize a single marijuana plant." "Mr Holcomb said he was told that as long as he did not demand that a warrant be provided to enter the property or otherwise escalate the situation, authorities would file no criminal charges." So, give up your fourth amendment rights, or else? For having 1 marijuana plant? Source: www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/national-guard-and-police-in-military-style-helicopter-descend-on-81-year-old-s-home-to-seize-one-a7348666.html
sputr 9y ago
Two things: 1. Legal weed is not almost here because of the 68' treaty that strictly prohibits it. That's the reason we see all of these "decriminalized" and "tolerated" scenarios. No one has yet to decide to just ignore the (very tiny) part of the full text that covers cannabis and no one is willing to step away from the rest of the text. Canada is showing signs they might do it, which will trigger a landslide, but at the moment that's only speculation. My country would have passed legalization months ago if not for this treaty :/. So the USA screwed everybody in 68' and they are still doing it. 2. The twilight zone is good for exactly one group of people: illegal dealers and growers. Imagine: the police don't prosecute you as aggressively anymore (or at all), the populous treats it as a legal substance, that's still incredibly popular (funny, it's culturally accepted, but still an act of defiance against the authority) ... and you have no taxes because you still can't buy it legally. I've personally seen dealers agents masquerading as pro-canabis campaigners derail political alliances that would have made realistic progress towards legalization.
- QAPereo 9y ago
  It's good for massive companies positioning themselves to monopolize the legal market when it emerges, bad for everyone else.

KingMachiavelli 9y ago

> California, which by one estimate produces seven times more marijuana than it consumes, will probably continue to be a major exporter — illegally — to other states. Here lies the unique situation in California; even before legalization in California, it was the home of not just it's black market cannabis industry but it was already a supplier to other parts of the country. It seems then that state level legalization will not be able to fully replace the illegal cannabis industry in California. This is a really interesting problem since other legal states are inclined to not push for legal interstate trade of cannabis. If MJ was legal federally, what framework for trade would states be inclined to support? It seems it wouldn't be in most states favor to want trade since CA and a few large producers (or early legalizers) would capture the market. Perhaps weed that crosses state lines would be taxed in both states allowing states with shortages like NV to import weed initially while still giving local growers the advantage of a lower total tax rate.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Just look at how alcohol is taxed. This is a solved problem.

knowThySelfx 9y ago

I wonder if all of our ancestors were potheads until weed was made illegal. Was it such a problem that it had to be made illegal? History doesn't show much about weed abuse. Though we've come across the problem of alcoholism in those days too.

knowThySelfx 9y ago
Who is having an agenda here?
- posterboy 9y ago
  I watched a documentation, a long time ago, that claimed cannabis prohibition was driven by an influential family with ties to the cotton industry, to suppress the competing hemp fibre industry. However, the claims about detrimental health affects aren't completely made up, in my humble opinion.
  - knowThySelfx 9y ago
    I agree, it probably is to be used with caution. I guess most people would know that. Same case with alcohol.
  - giancarlostoro 9y ago
    Anytime the topic is brought up I bring up the term "stoner" and leave it at that. Something about too much use of the stuff is definitely wrong and not researched enough.
    - knowThySelfx 9y ago
      Too much of it is wrong. Even Ambrosia, as the saying goes. Can be reasonably sure Pharma companies have done research over it. After all, it's in their interest if it appears bad. But they also use some of its contents. THC for instance. Seems good business.
    - int_19h 9y ago

Animats 9y ago

A friend of mine runs a farm bureau office in a rural Northern California county. She has to deal with pot growers, who need some of the same services regular farmers do. Not fun.

ikeyany 9y ago
You'd think it's because it's illegal that it attracts 'seedy' people. But if it weren't so taboo?

neoecos 9y ago

I don't want to be rude about this, but that's exactly the same thing all other `producer` country had to carry with. The problem of legalization, is not just about the use, is about the whole chain. I've seen this exactly things in my country, Colombia, and plus the social issue of mafias and drug dealing are my only reasons, personally (i don't encourage to not do it or judge people who just don't care about it), against it's use.

X86BSD 9y ago

Here is an interesting thought about legalization. In Kansas where they produce more wheat than anywhere in the world, what do you think would happen if Marijuana became to legal to grow here? Farmers struggling to survive on bushel pricing of wheat would move all their land to Pot because of the money. Wheat availability would crash through the floor. A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high.

wavefunction 9y ago
Presumably some more natural price equilibrium would be established.
briandear 9y ago
> A loaf of bread, and flour, would be sky high. Lol. “High.” However seriously if wheat prices rose, more farmers would grow wheat and prices would return to equilibrium — people being paid subsidies to grow nothing would suddenly find it profitable to grow wheat. Supply and demand works. The real problem is that farming is so heavily subsidized that actual supply and demand doesn’t always result in correct prices.
GFischer 9y ago
You do know there are other countries that can produce wheat, a lot more wheat than Kansas, for instance Argentina (currently produces twice as much wheat as Kansas and that's after they went way down because they switched to soybeans) or my own country Uruguay. If there was scarcity of wheat, be assured we'd cover it. BTW, we can cover scarcity of pot as well :) (it's legal here)

gumboshoes 9y ago

In other words: "New York Times, an establishment newspaper, lays down the initial arguments that will eventually lead to marijuana farming being dominated by large corporations."