8 ms·

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 t

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.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
- dogruck 9y ago
  We have laws, and we have mechanisms to change the laws. There are consequences to breaking laws. We live in a society.
  - lovich 9y ago
    Since this is about the US, the country literally was founded by people disregarding the laws because they were unjust. The law is the law but that's it. Break in a law isnt inherently immoral
    - kelnos 9y ago
      No, but just saying so doesn't make breaking this law somehow ok. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it immoral. Look, these people have been growing for a long time, illegally. I don't have a problem with the growing itself, but they've been making a mess of Mendocino County for years, and they're not exactly all nice people (violent crime rate up there is pretty high). Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. Sure, some of the new requirements will hurt. But overall we'll end up with a safer growing situation, and things will be done in a way that doesn't damage the land.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. No, they don't. Following that framework is admitting you are breaking a federal law. It bars you from being successful in businesses, make a lot of money and the feds have more reason to target you.
      - lovich 9y ago
        True, and I agree that people doing these illegal grows in public land and threatening people are acting immorally. Like the other commenter said though, the framework is not there for legal marijuana production, it just removes one of the layers of illegality
  - dogecoinbase 9y ago
rangibaby 9y ago
illegally? So? At one time it was legal to own a person. In some parts of the world it still is. Even the west has come up with legal reasons to imprison, torture, and kill people who have not faced a trial or worse, said nothing while their allies do it. Legal and illegal has got nothing to do with right and wrong.
- dogruck 9y ago
  You failed to change my opinion.
  - posterboy 9y ago
    Indeed, reason by analogy is not enough. Edit: but there is a connection between farming and slavery, however feeble today. Keeping drugs illegal creates opportunity for quasi-slavery on far away large scale farms, I imagine.
  - pizza 9y ago
    For them to struggle at something that (per your own comparison) you seem to think of as possible to do in a way so that it is worthy of praise (because you've compared them to ones who could do it in a praise-worthy way) shouldn't really be something that you have no sympathy towards, if you want everyone to do it the best way..? [Unless you mean that they are intentionally 'cheating', so to speak, and capable but self-centered]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- kelnos 9y ago
  I think comparing pot growing to slavery is a bit much. Regardless, the people of California have voted by majority to decide how pot should be grown, sold, and taxed. You can disagree with it all you want, but unless you want to change the minds of the residents of CA and get it changed, this is how it is. Illegal pot farms have been damaging public and private lands in northern CA for years, and now we have a legal framework to let people grow in an environmentally-sound way. There's also been a ton of violence involved in illegal pot farming. A legal framework could, and most likely will, make that safer. It would be great if growers could get their work done in a sustainable, non-violent manner, but apparently they can't. So they get rules. And I have no problem with those who don't follow them getting fined or jailed.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
Remember, the operators complying with those laws are still operating illegally. Why would you comply with a law that makes punishment more likely and damaging? The ones registering are likely a combination of those looking to head a court case and entrepreneurs setting up future publicity.

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.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
dogruck 9y ago
We have laws, and we have mechanisms to change the laws. There are consequences to breaking laws. We live in a society.
- lovich 9y ago
  Since this is about the US, the country literally was founded by people disregarding the laws because they were unjust. The law is the law but that's it. Break in a law isnt inherently immoral
  - kelnos 9y ago
    No, but just saying so doesn't make breaking this law somehow ok. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it immoral. Look, these people have been growing for a long time, illegally. I don't have a problem with the growing itself, but they've been making a mess of Mendocino County for years, and they're not exactly all nice people (violent crime rate up there is pretty high). Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. Sure, some of the new requirements will hurt. But overall we'll end up with a safer growing situation, and things will be done in a way that doesn't damage the land.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      >Now we have a legal framework for growing, for actually doing it in a legal way. No, they don't. Following that framework is admitting you are breaking a federal law. It bars you from being successful in businesses, make a lot of money and the feds have more reason to target you.
    - lovich 9y ago
      True, and I agree that people doing these illegal grows in public land and threatening people are acting immorally. Like the other commenter said though, the framework is not there for legal marijuana production, it just removes one of the layers of illegality
- dogecoinbase 9y ago

rangibaby 9y ago

illegally? So? At one time it was legal to own a person. In some parts of the world it still is. Even the west has come up with legal reasons to imprison, torture, and kill people who have not faced a trial or worse, said nothing while their allies do it. Legal and illegal has got nothing to do with right and wrong.

dogruck 9y ago
You failed to change my opinion.
- posterboy 9y ago
  Indeed, reason by analogy is not enough. Edit: but there is a connection between farming and slavery, however feeble today. Keeping drugs illegal creates opportunity for quasi-slavery on far away large scale farms, I imagine.
- pizza 9y ago
  For them to struggle at something that (per your own comparison) you seem to think of as possible to do in a way so that it is worthy of praise (because you've compared them to ones who could do it in a praise-worthy way) shouldn't really be something that you have no sympathy towards, if you want everyone to do it the best way..? [Unless you mean that they are intentionally 'cheating', so to speak, and capable but self-centered]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 9y ago
I think comparing pot growing to slavery is a bit much. Regardless, the people of California have voted by majority to decide how pot should be grown, sold, and taxed. You can disagree with it all you want, but unless you want to change the minds of the residents of CA and get it changed, this is how it is. Illegal pot farms have been damaging public and private lands in northern CA for years, and now we have a legal framework to let people grow in an environmentally-sound way. There's also been a ton of violence involved in illegal pot farming. A legal framework could, and most likely will, make that safer. It would be great if growers could get their work done in a sustainable, non-violent manner, but apparently they can't. So they get rules. And I have no problem with those who don't follow them getting fined or jailed.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

Remember, the operators complying with those laws are still operating illegally. Why would you comply with a law that makes punishment more likely and damaging? The ones registering are likely a combination of those looking to head a court case and entrepreneurs setting up future publicity.