cannabisnews.com: State Rule Clarifies 60-Day Supply of Marijuana
State Rule Clarifies 60-Day Supply of Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on October 03, 2008 at 07:17:53 PT
By Sara Jean Green, Seattle Times Staff Reporter
Source: Seattle Times
Seattle, WA -- A new rule determining how much pot constitutes a 60-day supply for medical-marijuana users was finalized on Thursday, a decade after Washington voters passed an initiative legalizing marijuana for people suffering from terminal and debilitating illnesses.The new state rule, which goes into effect Nov. 2, sets the supply limit at 24 ounces of usable marijuana plus 15 plants. Those who need more marijuana to manage their pain will have to prove they need it — though how they would do that remains unclear.
While the new, 60-day-supply rule is meant to clarify the law and help police officers determine legitimate amounts, medical-marijuana advocates say the amounts are unreasonable — especially the 15-plant limit — and put patients at risk of criminal prosecution.In King County, though, that's not going to happen, said Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, who has met with local law-enforcement officials and created an office policy that looks upon medical-marijuana cases "with a very lenient eye.""Having this rule, having some amount ... is helpful, but it's not the end of the analysis," Satterberg said. "If you're in King County and you're dying of cancer, we're not going to prosecute you if you have 15 plants or 30. If somebody is legitimately ill, we're not going to prosecute that case, period."In 1998, Initiative 692 legalized marijuana for medical purposes. Passed by 59 percent of Washington voters, the initiative said patients with valid certification from their doctors could possess a 60-day supply — but never said how much pot that was. The confusion and uncertainty led to conflict between police and patients.Last year, the Legislature ordered the state Department of Health to spell out an acceptable amount. An early recommendation put the limit at 35 ounces of usable pot plus 100 square feet of growing space. That proposal was changed after Gov. Christine Gregoire's policy analysts urged the health department to get more input from law-enforcement agencies and medical experts because the amounts appeared to be on the high side.Earlier this year, the draft rule was changed to 24 ounces of usable pot, six mature plants and 18 immature ones. The new rule finalized Thursday, however, doesn't differentiate between mature and immature plants.The rule also drops a requirement included in the earlier draft that patients get a doctor's note if they need more marijuana than the determined 60-day supply. The department opted "for more general wording" to better reflect what is written in state law, said Health Department spokesman Tim Church.During a public hearing in August, many patients argued that their doctors were unlikely to write them a note because of the controversy surrounding supply limits, he said.The department didn't come up with an alternative to a doctor's note because that wasn't their task from the Legislature. While Church acknowledged that the new language muddies the waters some, he said it will now "be up to patients and the courts to determine what medical necessity is" and how to prove it.Gregoire's spokeswoman, Laura Lockard, said Thursday the governor "wanted the department to have a solid sense of wide-ranging opinions and information to develop the best possible rule. She feels they have done that." But doctors and patient advocates say the new 60-day limit is woefully inadequate and could have a chilling effect on physicians if they have to go to court to defend their medical opinions."I'm disappointed. I think it's more politically driven — they used politics rather than science" in determining amounts, said Dr. Greg Carter, a clinical professor of rehabilitation medicine at the University of Washington. Carter was one of the first researchers to report marijuana's effectiveness in treating the symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease."The state is really not operating in the best interest of sick people who require this medicine," Carter said.Steve Sarich, the executive director of CannaCare, an advocacy group that provides patients with starter plants, said the health department "has set up a law you can't possibly follow." He said the rule doesn't take into account marijuana's growing cycle, which exceeds 60 days, or the fact that someone would need to plant 60 plants in the hope that 15 or 20 of them might reach maturity.Alison Holcomb, the drug-policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, said the new rule "is a step in the right direction," even though it doesn't begin to address the practical matter of accessing medical marijuana."Twenty-four ounces and 15 plants is a heck of a lot clearer than '60-day supply,' " she said. "It gives an average law-enforcement officer a very quick and easy way to determine if they're in compliance, move on and leave that patient in peace."But Douglas Hiatt, an attorney who represents medical-marijuana patients, disagrees. He said he plans to file a lawsuit to have the limits thrown out."No one I know is in compliance with the number of plants. No one," he said. "We will drown in cases if we can't get this rule stopped and keep it out of the hands of law enforcement."Satterberg said that, at least in King County, he's advised law-enforcement officers not to confiscate patients' pot supplies on the spot, even if they seem questionable.Essentially, Satterberg's policy says, growers — including cooperatives — won't be prosecuted unless prosecutors believe the operation is a front for distributing marijuana to those who are not ill. He said Thursday that his office hasn't yet encountered any such illegal operation.Satterberg said he's told local police agencies and the sheriff's office that "If there are any questions [about a patient's legitimacy], officers should take a small sample and some photos and give us a call."Source: Seattle Times (WA)Author: Sara Jean Green, Seattle Times Staff ReporterPublished: Friday, October 3, 2008Copyright: 2008 The Seattle Times CompanyContact: opinion seatimes.comWebsite: http://www.seattletimes.com/Related Article:How Much Pot Is Too Much?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24205.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #90 posted by Hope on October 09, 2008 at 10:47:18 PT
Museman comment 87
That's very interesting. Thank you. I've wondered about that from time to time.I heard once about some people having a huge plant they had taken cuttings off of for several years. It seemed strange and frankly, rather unbelievable, but I guess, in the right climate or situation, after what you tell me, it would be possible.Very interesting.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #89 posted by Commonsense on October 08, 2008 at 17:07:22 PT
museman
Guys like you were my favorite clients back when I was a public defender. ;-)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #88 posted by museman on October 08, 2008 at 11:27:08 PT
commonsense
Just to let you know. In case there is any residual feelings of personal conflict.I admit to a bit of a 'chip on my shoulder' towards just about everything that (in my mind) 'smells' of the status quo. As I told you earlier however, I haven't been insulted or slighted by your comments, even if I don't agree on some levels.I have at least one good friend who has been a lawyer on the front lines of the WOD for over 25 years or more. To be fair, I'll let you know that we have had the same argument for years. He hasn't changed his perspective, and I haven't changed mine. We are still friends, we still have shared the pipe, and we used to play music together.Let me be also clear, that I recognize your argument as being valid under the circumstances of current law (and you know my general opinion of 'law.') and the fact that we have an ally in the ranks of 'enemy' is a positive thing. It is hard to get across the idea that I can support 'compromise' as the best option available, but absolutely cannot see it as anything other than a bandaid solution. But hey, sometimes all you got is a bandaid, and that is better than bleeding to death. But having applied a bandaid, I certainly won't go around acting like the problem is solved. When you are up against the wall of BS, priority #1 is survival, and maintaining liberty, and unfortunately the options available to us do not include working it out in a reasonable, logical, ethical way, but we are forced to rely on someone like you. In your line of work, there just aren't enough who have your intention, or heart, and as doublespeak seems to be the language of choice amongst your colleagues -in that 'court-of-the-king' you really can't blame those of us who have been on the recieving end of that 'justice' too many times, who've had our 'defenders' defend us right into probation, fines, and imprisonment -because we made the huge mistake of trusting them.In my experience with law, and not just cannabis, the traffic laws and ordinances are pretty asinine at this point as well - just revenue gathering in an extremely unethical manner, I have always had to defend myself, because the public defenders (and I'm sorry, but most of us who get busted can't afford to pay a lawyer , and that seems to be about the only way to get one to care) don't do much except plea bargain, and usually in the favor of the state, rather than the client. After the first couple of shafts I realized that, and I've retained the public defender only under my conditions -which are to get out of the way and let me defend myself when the time comes.I realize that there are 'exceptions to every rule' and aparrently you are one of them, like my friend who works in Humboldt a lot.I apologize if my stance offended you. It really is not my intention to offend persons, but as I stated before 'ideologies.' I'm getting better at it as time goes by, and interactions between folks like you, helps me grow, I don't know about anyone else, but I try to learn from my interactions.I extend the laurel of peace, if necessary, but I'm not going to change my stance, or opinion. There is no way I am ever going to invest one particle of faith and belief in this fake system, and it may be substantially supported by real people, with real guns, but it is still fake. I realize that those who haven't seen the alternatives -for whatever reasons- are going to stick to what they know. But I have 'been to the mountain' and I have seen the Dream, and I'm sorry, but that 'reality' that so many are trying to defend, is just a transparent ghostworld compared to that dream that IS UNFOLDING right now.You don't have to agree, and you can attack or condemn that perspective, because you can't or won't see it (and I'm not specifically meaning YOU) but from the perspective of one who has seen it, there is just no 'giving of ground' particularly if that ground has been so dearly won.I hope you understand, so that in the future when I express myself in the terms I choose, you don't take it personal. You of course are always welcome to challenge my assertations just as I should be able to challenge yours -without either of us being misdirected into emotional reaction.FREE ALICE B TOKLAS FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #87 posted by museman on October 08, 2008 at 10:34:49 PT
Hope 76
Cannabis can be a perennial, depending on the available light, and heat.The purest form of Cannabis Sativa that grows in the equatorial jungles, has up to an 11 month flowering cycle.But even Cannabis Indica can be cycled over to another season. A lot of growers (in-the-know) use clones so they don't have to go through the guesswork of what the quality or yield is going to be like, and they don't have to mess with culling the males.They pick a female plant that has all the characteristics they want, and keep it alive under lights. I've known of 'mother' plants over 12 uears old that many harvests were gotten from.Once a plant has gone to bud, if the light is increased to more than 14 hours a day, it will go back into vegetative cycle -producing leaf and stem, making more branches to clone.I've also myself managed to keep a plant going all through the winter -without lights, just with the winter sun, and it just kind of slept through the winter and started growing again in about febuary.You can clip the buds off, and as long as you leave enough leaf for the plant to photosynthesize, and it doesn't freeze, it will stay alive.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #86 posted by Hope on October 08, 2008 at 09:38:31 PT
Commonsense
I think you were posting long before I was and as I recall, I was reading before then, but didn't start posting until around the time of the Rainbow Farm horror. I remember BGreen, Observer, at least one of the Sams, and quite a few others were already regulars before I started throwing my two cents worth in here and there.The years... they fly and drag by at the same time. We have no choice but to keep fighting, though, no matter how long it takes.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #85 posted by Commonsense on October 08, 2008 at 09:33:00 PT
Hope
Thanks for all your kind words. I don't know when I first start coming here. My first post I know was over five years ago.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #84 posted by Hope on October 08, 2008 at 08:12:15 PT
BGreen
Dang! How long is "a while"? I was seeing Commonsense's posts, along with yours, way before I ever commented... and that's been seven or eight years ago.I thought I had, anyway. Do I have something confused here?Anyway, I've always had a great deal of respect for both your opinions.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #83 posted by BGreen on October 08, 2008 at 07:41:51 PT
Thanks, FoM
You know I feel the same about you.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #82 posted by BGreen on October 08, 2008 at 07:39:09 PT
It's all cool, Commonsense
It's really easy to have misunderstandings without face to face communication. Once you've been here awhile you'll get to better know our personalities and us yours.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #81 posted by Commonsense on October 08, 2008 at 07:14:44 PT
BGreen
Thanks, man. Sorry if I'm being overly defensive.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #80 posted by FoM on October 08, 2008 at 07:07:40 PT
BGreen
You're sweet.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #79 posted by BGreen on October 07, 2008 at 22:22:58 PT
I welcome your input, commonsense
I guess I'm coming across quite a bit more confrontational than is my intention.Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us and I'm sorry for any comment I made towards you or about you that wasn't true.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #78 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 22:11:26 PT
Commonsense
You're cool. Very cool, in my book. I appreciate you. I know you care. Thank you for your help and you do help, I know. The people who are sick of this prohibition and all it has brought us and the world are a force, a growing force, and you are definitely a part of that force, and I suspect, a strong part. If someone says to someone else, "I think cannabis prohibition does a great deal of harm and no good at all and we have to end it", then they, too, are a part of this great and growing force for a better way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #77 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 21:53:23 PT
Comment 73.
I agree.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #76 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 21:51:02 PT
And Museman,
Thank you for comment 57, too. This question is for anyone. About medical cannabis plants, I was wondering. Do you have to pull up or cut down the entire plant at a certain time or can it be harvested a bit at a time and still grow and produce?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #75 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 21:43:27 PT
CommonSense
You're welcome.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #74 posted by Commonsense on October 07, 2008 at 21:38:31 PT
FOM
Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #73 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 21:29:36 PT
CommonSense
Since we must have lawyers in our system I wish they all were like you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #72 posted by Commonsense on October 07, 2008 at 21:26:05 PT
BGreen
I am a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I don't understand things from your perspective. I started smoking pot when I was 13 years old. I didn't smoke it once or twice. I've done it thousands of times over the course of my life. I did it almost every day, sometimes several times a day, for many years. I don't mess with it much anymore because I'm so busy with work and family activities that I just don't have time for it. And being someone with a law license to think about, even though we are somewhat anonymous on the Internet, if I were to have taken a couple of hits on the back porch at my brother-in-law's house last weekend when we were sitting out there drinking a beer, I might not want to admit that in writing on a public forum. I'm not someone with no inkling of what it is like to be a pot smoker in today's environment. I don't mind a debating issues, but often here what it turns into is this thing where I start getting accused of being one of the persecutors, one of the bad guys. I'm one of you guys. We're on the same team.
I am a lawyer. I work in the system. That doesn't mean I'm okay with everything that goes on in the system. It doesn't mean that I agree with all the laws. Should I quit in protest? What good would that do? Sometimes I feel
that is what some people here are asking me to do. But how would that help anyone? Should I stand up in court when I have client charged with a marijuana offense and tell the judge that we don't recognize these laws or his authority? Then my client and I would probably both end up in jail. What good would that accomplish? I do the best I can with what I have to work with and I don't want a lot of grief about it from people who haven't walked in my shoes.
I'm not the enemy here. I'm not trying to tell people how to live their lives. I don't care if people ignore the stupid marijuana laws. I've done that plenty myself. My main concern is getting the stupid laws changed. I come here to glance over the headlines and see if anything new and interesting has come up in the marijuana legalization movement. Sometimes I post, usually not, but if I post usually what is going on in my head is that I'm thinking about how to better make a case for legalizing marijuana, whether it be for medical purposes or whatever. If it sounds like I'm leaning toward the other side, like I guess I must have when I started talking about limits on plants and that sort of thing, it's because I know that laws on highly polarized issues like this are always a compromise. I'm trying to think about what's going to be going on in the minds of both sides, and I'm wondering how we need to formulate a law that we can get passed in my state, or wherever. If I can help shape laws that we can sell to voters and/or politicians and help get these laws passed, I'll have done something great. If I can help fellow activists hone their arguments and come up with plans of action that will work, I'm doing something worthwhile. We're all cool here. I'm alright. I don't mind debating. In fact I think we need to debate. I'd just rather not have to defend myself and what I do so much though. That makes being here kind of a frustrating waste of time, and I don't have a lot of time to waste. That's all.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #71 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 21:25:21 PT
Last Debate Location: Hempstead, New York
Excerpt: The town was first settled around 1644 following the establishment of a treaty between English colonists, John Carman and Robert Fordham, and the Indians in 1643. Although the settlers were from the English colony of Connecticut, a patent was issued by New Amsterdam after the settlers had purchased land from the local natives. The town may have been named for either Hemel Hempstead in the United Kingdom or the Dutch city of Heemstede. It is completely unrelated with Hampstead, a suburb in the London Borough of Camden. Some other suggestions regarding the origins of the name include one referencing a law during colonial times, requiring all farmers in the town to alternate one year, growing their cash crop, and the other year, growing hemp to replenish the soil. This method of soil regeneration was known as cover cropping.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Hempstead,_New_York#History
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #70 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 21:23:00 PT
Comment 61
That's such good news, Museman. Thank you!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #69 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 21:12:59 PT
That One
That one will be our next President I believe.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #68 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 20:56:32 PT
fight_4_freedom
My husband knows a longtime republican. He had a McCain sign in his yard for a while. My husband said when he drove by his house it now has an Obama sign. Obama signs are popping up all over the place I've been told. They might care about Prop 1. I'm sure they will be fair with you. The McCain campaign is looking for anything and everything to throw at Obama. Maybe giving the McCain campaign ammunition isn't wise but I could be wrong.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #67 posted by fight_4_freedom on October 07, 2008 at 20:43:10 PT
I cannot believe
That there is only one more debate. For how long this all has been going on, you would think that we would be getting to see more debating between the nominees. I went down to the Obama office earlier and it was packed. Everybody with a phone in their hands making phone calls to voters. I was explaining proposal 1 to many of them. I'm going back tomorrow to see if I can place some proposal 1 yard signs in front of the office. I also plan on leaving a sign up sheet for the yard signs at the office. Hopefully this will all be allowed though. I'm definitely going to mention that the Michigan Democratic Party endorses the medical use of marijuana, because I have a feeling they are not going to want any part of prop 1.BTW- Obama did good once again tonight in the debate. And I don't think John McCain helped himself out at all.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #66 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 20:39:49 PT
FoxNews: Who Won The Second Presidential Debate
Current Results:Senator Obama - 61%Senator McCain - 39%http://elections.foxnews.com/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #65 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 20:32:51 PT
Who Fared Better in Tuesday's Presidential Debate?
Current Results:Senator Obama - 82%Senator McCain - 15%http://www.cnn.com/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #64 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 20:30:03 PT
MSNBC: Who Won The Presidential Debate?
Current Results:Senator Obama - 85%Senator McCain - 12%http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_question/2008/10/07/1966529-who-won-the-presidential-debate
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #63 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 20:21:36 PT
museman
That is good news. Thanks for the update.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #62 posted by BGreen on October 07, 2008 at 19:45:51 PT
That's great news, museman
Great news, indeed.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #61 posted by museman on October 07, 2008 at 19:29:29 PT
OT: FYI
Unkat has found a new apartment, and is no longer 'homeless.' He doesn't have internet yet, so it may be a while before he posts regularly again.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #60 posted by museman on October 07, 2008 at 16:01:59 PT
afterburner
-42-
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #59 posted by afterburner on October 07, 2008 at 15:51:09 PT
museman #37 'How much pot is enough?'
How much weed would a med pat need if a med pat could toke weed?How much weed would a med pat need if a med pat could vape weed?How much weed would a med pat need if a med pat could eat weed?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #58 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 13:17:07 PT
museman
Thank you. I understand where you are coming from. I don't believe that change comes by being one party or the other but by looking inside ourselves and coming to some conclusions about our responsibility to others. I don't want to float above the masses of people but I want to walk in the middle of them. I might learn something that way.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #57 posted by museman on October 07, 2008 at 12:54:51 PT
Hope, FoM
Being respectful, and tolerant of differing perspectives, is a 'rainbow hippy' axiom. Succeeding at it takes a lot more than just stating it.I ought to know, I was schooled in the way of the cynic. I have thought well of my own abilities to 'let go of things' that bother me to the point of losing my composure. Unfortunately, I will admit that that cynicism I am also so well adapted to, sometimes trips me up. There are some things; words, accusations, personal slights that bother me more than others, and because of my 'piscean nature' I tend to chew on things for a long time before I swallow them, or spit them out. In that nature, I am also easily 'baited.'I have rebelled against my 'piscean' gullibilities over the years in many ways. Some of that has made me strong and able, some of it has made me mistaken.I am by no means the same 18 year old idiot who swallowed the party-line-hook-and-sinker when I swore that damn oath to serve and protect the people and constitution of the United States -which is by the way the only 'oath' I ever 'swore.'I really can't be blamed for my attitude, and I know where the blame really lies, even as my goals are basicly far out there -in terms of having any 'reasonable' (that word has been used a lot in this thread) expectation of them being fulfilled in my lifetime. I still choose to believe in the possibility however.Since I have been posting here, I have stretch marks on my psyche, and freshly activated brain cells. Though my spine has shrunk (meaning my literal spine -not a metaphor), my stature has been greatly improved. I have found a community of people -I don't even know what they look like, yet I share their thoughts and ideas on a daily basis.A few years before I actually made my first post here, runruff kept telling me I should check it out. Having 'checked out' numerous other forums composed of juvenile flamers and IQ-challenged redneck mentalities, I didn't believe that there could be a 'virtual front porch' like this one.When first I posted my radical perspective, it was very, very cynical. I remember FoM asking me, "Museman, why are you so angry?" It was a good question, and though I answered it immediately with metaphor, lyric, and song, the question was not really answered for me. I chewed on it for months.Sometime after that, in alignment (I believe) with a general consciousness revolution, I began to have a series of epiphanies and enlightening experiences, comparable to my old psychedelic days (without the induced state). As a poet and a prose writer, I tend to exprress myself in those terms. When you combine that with my well-schooled (from life not institution) cynicism, the combination has a certain impetus that can easily 'stir up the shit.' That can be a good thing, because people (myself included) sometimes get too comfortable in their perspectives, and need to 'stir it up' in order to get fresh perspective -and the prohibitionist mentality is surely a perfect example. Sometimes people wear their atittude and perspective too close to their heart, and bruising can occur when coming into contact with such as I have projected. I realize this.I have thought long and deep, weighing my talents for exposition and descriptive metaphor with the actual results. 'Balance' is the word that flashes on my inner marquee.I come from a life of struggle, of having to posess the intelligence to realize oh so dramaticly that fairness is not on the menu, that by the very standards of this society, my labors should have been well rewarded by now, but instead corruption, liars, thieves, and a host of incompetents make up the controlling, ruling factions of this reality, and they have little clubs where they get together to decide fates other than their own. They flaunt their misbegotten opulence in our faces, and then their lesser servants defend such behavior as 'reality' and 'you can't fight city hall.'If not for cannabis prohibition, a host of oppportunity and a whole lot less social prejudice would have been in my path instead of what actually was. If not for the fact that a few undeserving people have control and immoral, unethical 'posession' of power and resource -who fuel and propogate prohibition just so they can create the fear and loathing in america -that they have done so successfully, my life would have been extremely different.As a child of the imminent 'aquarian' age I have learned that the 'cure' for any 'dis-ease' is done by removing the root cause, not by 'treating the symptom.' In this WOD, the symptoms are myriad, and diverse, resulting in cultural and social division, and much unnecessary suffering.The root I believe is not in 'law' but in a general belief in a system of values that deliberately favors the greedy, the violent, and the morally corrupt. The 'wording' of that system of values is deeply steeped in ancient religious dogma and doctrine, with the deliberate appearance of 'coming from God.' That means that the 'sheeple' are going to follow (in general) the precepts and tenets of that system first, before they make the effort to find out for themselves. The powers and principalities count on that presumption to keep their power, and perpetuate it from one generation to the next.I picked up a hitchhiker yesterday who said this; "Religion is based on fear." Unfortunately, he is right, and I agreed with him. Even though the words proclaimed from all of the pulpits are 'faith,' the unfortunate and uncomfortable truth is that 'faith' has yet to truly be manifested by other than a handful of people in each generation -who are persecuted, mocked, and treated inhumanely all across the board. Once they are safely dead, the status quo is then able to incorporate selective aspects of their truths into their doctrine, and claims that they have 'embraced the truth' because they echo words and phrases use by those they formerly hounded to death.Claims of 'truth' and 'fact' -backed up by contrived statistics, is the mainstay of confusion in the prohibition handbook -as so wonderfully concisely revealed in observers' 'analysis.' It is also the tactics used by servants and 'officials' of the status quo to justify such things as war, poverty and the various levels of suffering humanity. The recent 'bail out' is just such a perfect example of the REAL PRIORITIES of our so-called 'representative government' it amazes me at just how far the people in general will allow these false asses to go.Communication is a skill. Talking, speaking is a normal faculty that most people use without ever aquiring the skills of communication. Communication is an art. Art and skills are developed by deliberate, focussed practice, including but not depending upon access to academia. In fact, contrary to prevailing belief, 'academia' is quite corrupted these days, focussed ont 'how to be a good master or slave' rather than 'how to be a good human being.'In order to communicate, it takes more than just skill or talent however, there has to be a willingness on the part of both the communicator, and the communicatee to consider the information, to listen, to hear, to investigate honestly without all the emotional hoopla so prevalently considered 'valid' by todays standards.I am still honing my skills. I will never be 'finished.' I am still growing, albeit much slower than an 18 year old. In order to end this cannabis aparteid, a lot of people are going to have to stop listening to all the so-called authorities, and look for themselves. Those of us who found what cannabis has to offer, usually actually start thinking for ourselves, which is why guys like me are so adamantly against any form of forcing perspective and status-quo plattitudes on our uniqueness. We paid the dues to get our unique consiousness and perspective, and kind of resent the ignorance of those who spout patent prases and cliche, as if it were some kind of 'wisdom.'I do recognize and pity those whose perspectives of reality are so narrow and finite that they will never (in this life) get to experience the wondrous miracles of creation up-close and personal, who will never realize the power of their belief, versus the contrived (but false) realities propped up by equally contrived doctrines of psuedo-science, and psuedo-spirituality (religion). I recognize the old tired arguments of cyclical (small circles at that) thinking that allow some people to feel the smugness of being backed up by the 'truth' of the status quo (pack-of-lies), thereby enabling them to maintain their ignorance, and social niches, (And I'm not pointing at anyone in particular, so please don't take it that way). I recognize what we are up against. But even though the walls of ignorance and mis-understanding appear to be high and unassailable, I know better. I know that any conflict is always won, not by compromise, not by shoveling money down its greedy maw, not by forcing capitulation of those who disagree, not by treating the symptomatic surface, but by deep and unflinching resolve.Resolve to be free, and freedom will be yours, in all things.FREE THC FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #56 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 10:43:08 PT
Hope
This election so far has shown to me that people can be an individual and yet support a common goal change in direction for our country. I think herd is like the word sheep. We are people not animals. We think and decide what we believe is best. At least we should.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #55 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 10:34:33 PT
herds and such
I believe in individuals and individualism but when we have to, to get where we want to go, cooperation with those going in the same direction can be essential.Maverick, sorry had to say it again, cattle, herds etc. are not things that appeal to my sense of being an individual, but it's the thought... not that any one is actually, in any way, bovine, or equine, or canine, or feline... it's a decent analogy of the situation at hand.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #54 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 09:53:31 PT
Hope
The way I look at life is no man is an island. I know a small portion of what other's know. I know things that other people don't know based on how life has been for me personally. We should be strong and independent but we can't do anything alone as far as reform goes. The herd mentality doesn't make sense to me in that we must work towards a goal of working together for the common good of our country.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #53 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:44:33 PT
"Head 'em up! Move 'em out!"
Please?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #52 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:43:04 PT
One last word on mavericks...
Scrolling through the comments and reactions to one maverick's, Commonsense's, question about how we could cooperate with those who wish to be our "herders" a bit better and perhaps reach our common goal sooner, was bound to be something that roused the deep maverick sensibilities of the other mavericks checking in here. Being a maverick is about being free and wanting others to be free and go there own way. With a snort, a tussle here and there, and a bit of a ruckus, we have to keep moving, albeit, as individuals, together, towards our common goal... somehow.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #51 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 09:35:06 PT
Youbetcha Hope!
I couldn't resist.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #50 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:32:58 PT
Exactly!
A team of mavericks... would mean them all going off in a different direction of their own choosing. I can't see them getting much good done, as a "Team", like that. Maybe it would keep them from getting much bad done, though. Team is exactly opposite of maverick... as I see it.We are definitely people that don't have your average herd mentality... but at least we're all moving in the same direction.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 09:28:39 PT
Team of Mavericks
A team of mavericks reminds me of how hard it would be to try to corral a bunch of cats.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:25:21 PT
FoM
I knew you wouldn't like it... considering where the term was most recently heard... and I never heard the term "A team" of mavericks before. But it just seemed like a decent analogy in this case. It seemed so crazy and funny, "A team of mavericks".... that I just can't get it out of my mind.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:23:30 PT
I laughed outloud at Palin's term...
"A team of mavericks" when I heard it during the debate the other evening. Oh my gosh! She, apparently had no idea what she was saying. A maverick bovine is one that goes it's own way, not with the "Herd", in spite of what might be required of him or her. A "Team of mavericks" just seems hilarious to anyone who knows anything at all about cattle and "mavericks". Oh my, I thought that was so funny.Of course there is an official sports team, the Dallas Mavericks... but supposedly they cooperate better than your average, true maverick. It would be funny to watch them play if they all truly were "Mavericks".Our team of mavericks... while all true mavericks, as far as "The System", is concerned ... seem to be all headed in more or less the same direction... so that's good and there's enough of us now that we should definitely qualify as an entire "Herd" and when they see us coming and hear the word "Stampede" in reference to us ... we aren't going to be as easy to ignore as when there was just a few of us. We've already managed to raise a "cloud of dust" testifying to our existence that can be seen far and wide.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 09:19:39 PT
Hope
Yuck yuck yuck, If I never hear the word maverick again it will be too soon! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:11:47 PT
"I see everyone's point of view."
I do, too, FoM, or I always, at least, try to. At the same time that I may not agree with them all... I respect them for what they are. Everyone's "Pretty, shiny penny... or two of them"... and I know they mean something to them and that means something to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:07:58 PT
And yes...
Altogether, we're a pretty high strung bunch. Things matter to us and we won't stand irritation for as long as some people might endure it without doing something. If there ever was a "Team of mavericks"... we could qualify... except unlike the picture I draw from hearing the term "A team of mavericks"... of a bunch of long horns running off in all different directions... we're all going in the same direction with pretty much the same goal in mind.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by FoM on October 07, 2008 at 09:05:43 PT
My 2 Cents
I see everyone's point of view. I look at things from a distance so that I can see a big picture. I know that it's time to change the law but how that happens I'm really not sure. I believe Barney Frank's Bill would help move us forward. So many states have bad, harsh laws and a Federal Law change might help. That's my 2 cents.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 09:02:01 PT
Dankhank, AOLBites, Nuevo Mexican...
The Sams, all the new guys and the old guys and the in-betweens. The list goes on... and I hate to make "A list"... because I will forget some, but everyone of you is appreciated and is doing something about this cruelty and injustice to so many over a plant, even if you're not posting... just reading and learning. It doesn't matter that much whether we argue, discuss, rant, just comment, or just try to learn something about what is going on... as long a we all say something, somewhere, sometime, and stand up for what we believe, tell the truth, and be civil. It matters. C-News, I think, is a wellspring of knowledge and understanding that can spread and do good throughout the world.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Hope on October 07, 2008 at 08:46:05 PT
Commonsense, BGreen, E_Johnson... so many.
have been posting and discussing this problem here since before I ever posted back around the time of the Rainbow Farm debacle and 9-11. I'm a newbie here compared to all you guys. BGreen, I believe Commonsense has had to defend many people that are persecuted by the laws... and he wasn't born a lawyer... surely he's got a good idea of what people are being put through... or he wouldn't even be here or care. I think he cares very much. We need to be from and in all "walks of life" to get our truth out. We need associations with everyone, everywhere.We are an amazing conglomerate tied together by our desire to change the way things are. Being "tied together" makes us strong and more powerful. We are a force unto ourselves.I treasure and learn from everyone's point of view here. We have ex-police officers and military people. EJ... that I think of as our "Rocket scientist", genius person. BGreen, Museman, and many more... our musicians. Commonsense... our lawyer. Storm Crow, our teacher and compiler of an astounding and useful collection of good medical information. Observer, our propaganda expert. Dr. Russo, who I'm sure checks in on what's going on here from time to time.Paul Armentano... our prolific writer and speaker for NORML. All our "Good Hearts" and "Brave Hearts". FoM and I... housewives that care. Fight for Freedom, our youngest... that we know of. Runruff, Afterburner, Gary, Ekim, Mike, Hemp World, and so many others. This is a wonderful place to learn and to share, and I'm so happy to be a part of it.I don't ever want any of you to stop posting. It makes me afraid for what might have happened or be happening to you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by BGreen on October 06, 2008 at 23:45:06 PT
commonsense, you're a lawyer
You're less exposed to the cannabis culture than you are to those who choose to oppress us. I wish more of you would try to learn about us than just trying to destroy us.We've had our own misunderstandings when you first posted here so some of my post referred to our previous discussions. We welcome your input and have tried to answer your questions. You have to understand that your legal background naturally makes you speak in somewhat of an authoritative tone which makes us want to hurl questions at you as if you represent all of those in your profession who won't talk to us.You didn't raise my ire, I was just trying to get you to understand why we are so passionate about ending the war on cannabis. In fact, if you think our ire is raised because we question you, then you came here with false impressions and expectations. Our ire is raised because we're treated as if we are murderers and terrorists, all over a plant that has never directly killed a single person.You don't know the background of most of us nor how much we've suffered. You could take the attitude that it's too much trouble to post here or you could make this a learning experience of what happens when laws create the problems instead of fixing them. We are what happens when the laws are inherently problematic.Dang, what's this world coming to if we can't even get a good debate out of a lawyer? LOLThe Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by E_Johnson on October 06, 2008 at 11:32:56 PT
Wait, Commonsense, that was not right
A person who is selling hard drugs is selling hard drugs, period. Whether that person claims the marijuana portion of her or his inventory is medical is absolutely beside that point in that case.That person is not someone "abusing the medical marijuana system" -- because the claim that the marijuana portion of the inventory is medical does absolutely not one thing to impede the ability of the prosecutor to prosecute the person for selling hard drugs.You had me fooled there for a second. You should withdraw that example, because logically speaking, that example has not one thing to do with plant limits or abusing the medical marijuana system.The medical marijuana laws don't cover anything but marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Hope on October 06, 2008 at 10:57:31 PT
Museman
You're right. It's not something that can be well discussed, because of all the other problems... like, really, no one should be telling anyone what they can grow or not grow on their own property anyway. And it's not like talking about how many carrots will we need to grow to get us through the next year. It's about a plant that some people will harm and even kill another person for having or even being suspected of having. Many people have suffered harshly and even been killed because of the prohibition of a simple plant.It's the prohibitionists and the prohibition, not the plant, that are the real problem and the real danger.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by museman on October 06, 2008 at 09:37:36 PT
Hope -the question
"....wanting to hear what ideas and thoughts people here had about what amounts would be reasonable from our point of view."In my mind, I thought I was answering that question by posing the rhetoric; "Whose idea of 'reasonable' are we going to use as a standard?" The state? The Fed? The experienced cannabis user? If you were a non-biased person asked to make this 'judgement call' it seems 'reasonable' to me to tend to make calls like that based on experience, rather than conjecture and theory, or invented statistics, propaganda, and lies.The exact point is that I know what is good, and not good for my body, and life, much much better than anyone not walking in it. That may not be true for everyone, but just because there is an ignorant person over there is no excuse to curtail my liberties over here.I think the real issue that is not being looked at realisticly is the money/profit issue, not the 'quantity.'Hypocritical thinking is involved on the part of those who 'worry' about 'drug dealers' making a profit.' While pharma rakes it in literally over our dead bodies.It is also wrong that any group of people should be able to make and enforce arbitrary decisions affecting others health and welfare without really giving them any representation or noticeable consideration in their 'political' process. Thats supposedly one of the main issues that provoked the revolution back in the 1700's; "Taxation without representation."Decisions that should be mine, and mine alone, are not only being made 'for me' against my will and agreement, but they intend to force me to comply with guns, threats against myself and family, economic shunning (keeping easy access to resource limited to those who 'comply') and innumerable other unpleasant experiences ladled out by people who get paid to do it, who by their mere designation act and tend to believe that they are above the very law they are supposed to be upholding. And Bgreen also pointed out "...they'll never back down from their positions on cannabis prohibition, even though none of their lives are on the line. I would ask the question? How many cops does it take to bust one pacifist hippy for pot? Apparently it takes an entire army, armed to the teeth, with itchy trigger fingers, IQs of about -10, at least one helicopter costing taxpayers about $4,000 an hour, 5 or 6 patrol cars, a 4x4, and a Swat van. Snipers with scopes hanging out on the periphery, looking at your children through the lense that is casting that laser -red dot on their forehead -and of course laughing quite hardily about it the whole time. Did I just make that up? Ask anyone who has ever been busted. Ask runruff, who just celebrated his first year out of the fed pen for 'having too much pot.'As I said before, the 'question' of 'how much pot' to 'allow' is about as substantial as the old 'How many angels can sit on the head of a pin?' question. The question is a diversion from the real questioning of the false authorities making life miserable for people base on racist, bigoted, false information, and knee-jerk reaction.How much pot is enough?How much money is enough?How much food in your refrigerator is enough?How much death in war is enough?How much TV is enough?How much gas in your car is enough?How much of anything is enough?"Buddy, you got too much life, the law states quite clearly that all persons not meeting financial requirement #666 are entitled to only 43 years. Please report immediatly to the nearest euthanasia center for processing. Thank you. Have a nice day."FREE GHI BUTTER FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by Hope on October 06, 2008 at 07:10:06 PT
The "Bad" thing is...
When you're sick... you need the help then and can't wait months for it to grow and mature, no matter if you can grow it yourself or get someone else to grow it for you.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by Hope on October 06, 2008 at 07:06:16 PT
About Commonsense's question....
and what he was trying to get at. He was wanting to hear what ideas and thoughts people here had about what amounts would be reasonable from our point of view. I do know enough to know that it could vary greatly. Depending on how they are consuming it, when, what for and the quality of the product... some people could get by with very little, where others would need considerably more.In "farming" and "gardening"... things aren't all that profoundly predictable... so it's difficult to set some number. The best way to solve that man made problem, of course, would be to go with the amount the person that needed the most would need with some allowance for experimenting with different plants and for when the crop didn't do that well. Expecting "bumper" crops won't get it. I think we all believe here, that there is something wrong with being told by government and other people that you can't grow a plant and that if you do, someone else has to "Permit" it. So... although the government telling you, a "Free" citizen of the United States, how many plants you can or can't grow, is insulting on a deep and basic level... it's where we are and what we have to deal with right now.Nobody really knows the answers to the limit and amount questions. They can't. But we could discuss what we thought those amounts might be.Or not.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by Commonsense on October 06, 2008 at 06:33:58 PT
E_Johnson
"It is wrong to make patients suffer with inadequate plant limits, just to avoid "giving the enemy something to use as propaganda." "They use everything they can get as propaganda, and if they don't have anything real, they just make it up, so there's no real way to avoid this propaganda you somehow think we can avoid by accepting inadequate plant limits."I don't want people stuck with inadequate plant limits. I just know that until we see major changes in marijuana laws the powers that be are always going to set limits on the amount medical users can produce or possess and all I was asking to begin with in this thread is what would the limit need to be at a minimum for it to be adequate, even for heavy users? Somehow people have seen what I have written and taken from it that I'm "the man" trying to keep everybody down or something, but that's not the case. I don't care how many plants people grow. If it were up to me it would be completely legal and people could grow as much as they wanted to grow for medical purposes or any other purposes. I doubt I respond to any more posts on this thread. It's just too frustrating and a waste of my time.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by E_Johnson on October 05, 2008 at 23:06:10 PT
Oh I get it, thanks a lot
"I've found almost everyone here to be either friendly or silent."I have a right to tell my truth too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Paint with light on October 05, 2008 at 22:33:42 PT
Commonsense
Keep speaking your truths as you know them.I have enjoyed your comments.The only way to universal freedom for everyone is through the changing of the laws.I don't let the laws(or anyone) tell me what to do. I do go about my business with full knowledge of the forces on the other side, their methods, their procedures, and their limits.I've found almost everyone here to be either friendly or silent.I've also felt attacked, but nothing I couldn't handle.I just thought I'd try to throw some positive vibes your way.If cannabis was equal to alcohol, legally, all our troubles would be over.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by E_Johnson on October 05, 2008 at 22:30:16 PT
Commonsense
"I'm talking about things that they can use for propaganda purposes against these medical marijuana programs, that's all."But I'm saying that they use whatever they feel like using as propaganda against these programs. I don't look sick. My pain is on the inside. My illness has not wrecked the outside of my body. So I come out of a club not looking physically sick -- and they use THAT as propaganda too.Sandy Banks wrote in the LA Times that there needs to be a big crackdown on the medical marijuana clubs in LA, because she thinks looking healthy is the same as being healthy, and that proves the system is being abused. So you see, they will use whatever they can GET for propaganda. There's no escaping it. "There have been cases where they have found "medical growers" with large "dealer amounts" of other illegal drugs along with really large quantities of marijuana, and/or find large amounts of cash and have actually conducted controlled buys."When you say "there have been cases," I'd say -- how do know that's what really happened? Because the people who hate us and want us all dead said it happened?It is wrong to make patients suffer with inadequate plant limits, just to avoid "giving the enemy something to use as propaganda."They use everything they can get as propaganda, and if they don't have anything real, they just make it up, so there's no real way to avoid this propaganda you somehow think we can avoid by accepting inadequate plant limits.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by Commonsense on October 05, 2008 at 20:31:04 PT
Reverend Bud Green
I'd really like to figure out what is going on here. I'm not telling you your choices are limited. Your choices are not limited. You can do whatever you want to do. I'm not trying to force anything you. All I want to do is get the marijuana legalized. Like you I'd love for everyone to be able to have a cannabis garden if they want one. What exactly is it that I have said that has caused offense? Maybe I'm a little slow or something, but I'm not sure what I've done here to raise people's ire. Clearly it doesn't take much for that to occur.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Commonsense on October 05, 2008 at 20:18:23 PT
E_Johnson
I didn't say that the medical marijuana programs in states that have them are being terribly abused. I said that, "Everytime they bust somebody who is obviously abusing the system and just trying to get rich as a drug dealer, it really hurts the image of these medical marijuana programs." I was talking about people abusing the system by using medical marijuana as cover for cash cropping marijuana. Sometimes they'll bust people with large grows that really are just growing for themselves, but clearly sometimes they really are catching people who are abusing the system. There have been cases where they have found "medical growers" with large "dealer amounts" of other illegal drugs along with really large quantities of marijuana, and/or find large amounts of cash and have actually conducted controlled buys. I'm talking about things that they can use for propaganda purposes against these medical marijuana programs, that's all. Read my post again and maybe you'll see waht I was getting at.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by FoM on October 05, 2008 at 19:20:12 PT
OT: Not That It Matters....
I checked out Obama's blog and found this link in one of the comments. It's just a nice story.http://leishacamden.blogspot.com/2008/10/not-that-it-matters.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by E_Johnson on October 05, 2008 at 16:33:50 PT
How to disabuse people of this notion
I was thinking -- I wonder if the medical marijuana clubs should fund their own proactive independent security audits to counter the unsubstantiated argument that always gets floated around by the antis that the medical marijuana laws are being terribly abused.There's never any evidence for this charge provided by the people who make it. But people are so ignorant and prejudiced about pot, it's easy to convince them that widespread abuse is happening. Like Sandy Banks, who judges a patient a fraud if the patient appears to be under 40, has visible body fat and consumes his medication from a bong.They use bongs. They're not wasting away physically. They must be potheads abusing the system.Those kinds of charges of criminal fraud get thrown around way too easily, to an extent that would easily be libelous if patients were being called out by name.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by E_Johnson on October 05, 2008 at 15:42:28 PT
A couple of things re: Commonsense
What's coming up with the failing economy: more burglaries and robberies and embezzling and people trying to keep their homes by dealing a little drugs on the side.The police budgets stretched thin. The federal magic wand growing dim.People who say they'll never back down are going to be running out of the money they've been spending to keep from backing down.Pretty soon, they're going to have to CHOOSE between busting home invasion robbers and busting marijuana growers. The days are coming to an end when they can afford both.And as far as this comment goes:"People that are abusing the system are hurting the rest of us who would like to get medical marijuana laws passed in our states. The best thing for the rest of us would be for people to see that medical marijuana programs in other states are above board and really work, that they are helping people and not being just terribly abused. "What makes you think they're being terribly abused? What evidence have you seen of that other than ignorant views like that of, for example, Sandy Banks at the LA Times, who cast sinister aspersions on the "young, healthy looking people seen leaving the clubs."They must be abusing the system, she concluded, because they look healthy to her, and besides, they use bongs, and smoke more than one strain.Makes you wonder why doctors bother with MRIs and blood tests and X-rays and so on, when newspaper reporters like Ms. Banks can just look at strangers on the street and sort the healthy from the sick.That is ignorant prejudice, and ignorant prejudice is always worth fighting tooth and nail. Ignorant prejudice is never something we should just give up our lives to in the name of so-called common sense.In fact, young healthy-looking people are the fastest growing demographic for new HIV diagnoses. Luckily people these day start getting treated early, before they look sick enough to convince the ignorant prejudiced people out in the 38 states that they are truly deserving of this medicine and the system is NOT BEING ABUSED.But it's possible to create the impression that the system is being terribly abused.Just keep repeating that allegation, and the people in those 38 states will believe that it's true.Easy as pie. No actual evidence required.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by BGreen on October 05, 2008 at 14:43:46 PT
Cannabis prohibition is like slavery
Slavery is so inherently wrong that it wasn't necessary to control it or put limits on it, it was necessary to completely abolish it.The mindset about cannabis is that the restrictions placed upon growing and possessing it will always keep us criminalized and under constant suspicion. It will always grant law enforcement the power to come into MY house and make me PROVE MY INNOCENCE, all over a plant that has been lied about and demonized only to destroy certain cultural groups despised by the controlling authorities.The cannabis users are the current slaves, and the only just action towards us is to set us completely free. Don't keep up the lies in order to keep us bound to you, (albeit with a slightly longer leash,) your only humane option is to admit your lies and break the ties that bind us.If every house was allowed to have a small cannabis garden there would be no cannabis sales, no organized crime related to cannabis prohibition, no violence perpetrated upon us because of cannabis prohibition. There would be no need for any of these intrusive regulations being forced upon us, which is what Commonsense is insisting is our only option besides the status quo.I stand with others here at CNews that complete cannabis freedom is what we've put our lives on the line all along to achieve and that's what we demand.Commonsense, you've talked before about the people you work with and how they'll never back down from their positions on cannabis prohibition, even though none of their lives are on the line. Well, our fight has been going on a lot longer than you've been involved, so the determination of your associates in the legal side of this are, I assure you, matched or bettered by the sheer determination of persecuted cannabis activists like Museman, runruff and others here like myself. We risk our lives, our freedom and our ability to earn a living for our stance. Those in the legal profession don't. That's why we don't necessarily think that our choices are as limited as you seem to.You see, we truly are the slaves to the government, always looking over our shoulder like criminals even though we hurt nobody and try to live benevolent lives. We have every right to demand to be, as Martin Luther King said, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by museman on October 05, 2008 at 13:35:42 PT
Hempworld, Hope
Hempworld, thanks for your vote of confidence. Your contributions are valued as well. -yours too commonsense-even if we appear to have clashing perspectives.Hope. Ultimately, within us all is a 'child of God' that will become the norm instead of the buried rarety that it currently is. I try to see past the temporal difference, specially when the 'other' consciousness is willing to see past it. I am happy at any and all progress that ends cannabis prohibition, even though I will not be completely 'satisfied' until absolute liberty and freedom - as I believe was originally intended, is achieved.'Brothers at arms' is a phrase I recognize and honor, even as I disavow all aspects of war. Diversity is what makes for great potential. Each and every perspective that is not supporting, creating, and enacting harm, -in my belief- is valid.Words by themselves can do no harm, unless the belief in them supports or cause actions that are harmful. Character assasination, insult, and personal accusation are another thing entirely; they are stumbling blocks and tools of the provocatuer that serve only to distract and divert good intentioned discussion (which includes respectful dis-agreement). There has been some of this that has occured, (from a small handful of others) but I can see the intelligence behind commonsense's arguments even if I don't agree, and I haven't ever had reason to believe his intentions were aimed at me personally.Thanks to all the dedicated work that is done here and through here. I am in good company.FREE MARY JANE FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by Hope on October 05, 2008 at 09:03:56 PT
Commonsense and Museman.
Brothers in a struggle against a commonly perceived injustice. Knowing a little about the both of you, I like the image. Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by museman on October 05, 2008 at 01:05:47 PT
commonsense
Nope, no offense taken, none intended. Agreement on mutual goals of removing prohibition. I respect your right to your own path, and opinion.If all discussion was always agreeable, there would be no reliable basis of comparison for experiencing/feeling successful communication, and transfer of idea and information. Challenge is good for growth, war is detrimental.FREE BIG SUR HOLY WEED FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by Commonsense on October 05, 2008 at 00:15:03 PT
Museman
I hope I haven't offended you, Museman. You and I have different ways of dealing with the world. I'd like to get these laws changed and I'd like to have as many people as possible work toward that end. If you aren't interested in that, that's your perogative. I certainly don't want to fight with you about it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Commonsense on October 04, 2008 at 22:49:44 PT
Hemp World
The article you cut and pasted in here is talking about David Pimentel's study, a study that didn't even talk about hemp. Pimentel hates biofuels, says none of them will work, that they all take too much energy to produce, use farmland we ought to be using for food, pollute the environment, etc.. I think Pimentel is too biased against biofuels. He includes all sorts of energy inputs that are not actually required or used in biofuel production to slant his energy balance numbers. As usual he collaborated with Tad Patzek on this study, an oil industry insider. They do hit pieces on ethanol and other biofuels because they are against mandates and subsidies for biofuels and especially against requiring oil companies to blend these fuels with their petroleum products. I keep up with these things and I'll bet you money that Cornell University did not publish any study in 2005 that concluded that "hemp is by far the most superior crop to use for fuel." The article you are referring to is extremely misleading.I am familiar with most of the various methods for biofuel production. So far, none of them really are ready for prime time. They're all too expensive to produce, and the feedstocks require way too much land to produce enough land to produce a small amount of fuel. The bottom line is that we're going to have to figure out a way to produce enough fuel per acre to supply several drivers per acre before any of these fuels will ever be able to satisfy more than a very small portion of our liquid fuel needs. We're also going to have to do it cheaply and without too much of a negative impact on the environment. So far, we aren't really even close to being able to do this yet with any of the biofuels regardless of the feedstocks we use and regardless of the processes we use to produce the fuel.There is plenty of garbage on the Internet about biofuels, plenty of people pushing biofuels who play really lose with their pie in the sky numbers. They'll claim all these theoretical yields that no one has been even close to getting yet in real life, and claim these theoretical cheap production costs that no one has been able to achieve yet. You'll see this with cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel from algae, methanol through pyrolysis, biomass liquefaction, whatever. Lynn Osburn is a cheerleader for hemp, and frankly, she plays pretty lose with her numbers too. Her biomass yield numbers are way higher than anyone is actually getting on a consistent basis, and there are plenty of other crops used for biomass production that are currently producing far higher yields than those for hemp in the various countries where it is grown. Hemp is being grown in several countries now. Why aren't we seeing them producing lots of fuel from hemp if it is so perfectly suited for fuel production? You have to ask yourself that. The bottom line is that if it was the absolute best feedstock we'd see hemp fuel being produced on a grand scale in parts of the world where hemp is currently produced. We aren't seeing that though. In fact we aren't seeing any real commercial scale fuel production with hemp. Fuel is being produced on a fairly large scale with palm oil, sugarcane, corn, soybeans, rapeseed, sorghum, etc., but there is no commercial production of hemp fuel anywhere even though hemp is being grown in several countries. Why is that? If it was really "by far the most superior crop to use for fuel" don't you think people would be using it to produce fuel instead of all these other feedstocks? Shouldn't we see at least a few million gallons of hemp fuel being produced every year around the world? Billions of gallons of biofuels are currently being produced from other feedstocks. I am for biofuels. I think there is a lot of potential in them. I think that someday we're going to figure out a way to produce enough biofuel from an acre of land to supply four or five or more drivers. We were using somewhere around 20 or 25 million acres of farmland for biofuels last time I looked into it, and already it is affecting food prices. With current ethanol production methods it's taking a good two acres of land to supply one driver for a year, biodiesel yields are a lot lower. If we could supply say five drivers per acre, 20 million acres would be enough to supply 100 million drivers. That would be something if we could do that and do it pretty cheaply. We wouldn't get anywhere close to that producing methanol through pyrolysis even if Osburn's numbers are correct. Even with her high per acre biomass yields, she's only talking about producing 1000 gallons per acre. They're aiming higher than that with their theoretical yields for cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel from algae. And of course hemp isn't the only thing you can produce methanol from. Any biomass will work, and there are other crops with higher yeilds like switchgrass or miscanthus. They've yielded 27 tons of miscanthus from an acre of land in Illinois and regularly get 14 to 17 tons. Nowhere is hemp yielding anywhere close to that. In Canada the average is closer to 3.5 tons per acre. Would they be able to average 10 in the U.S. with better growing conditions? They aren't getting that high in China. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but people who lobby for hemp exaggerate a little bit, like lobbyists are wont to do. You have to take what you hear from them with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to totally bash hemp here. I'm just trying to inject a little bit of reality into the conversation. There are uses for hemp. We should be growing it here. It would be a useful crop. It can grow a lot of places not suitable for most other crops and it's not a crop that requires a lot of fertilizer or destroys the land like many do. There would be a place for it here. Farmers could make money from it. It's just not the super crop people want to believe it is. Again, if it was, we'd be seeing hemp just taking off in countries where it is allowed. We'd be hearing about it all the time and farmers and so on would be fighting like crazy to get the government to allow it here. There are some lobbying efforts from farmers now, but nothing like the kind of efforts we'd see if it really was such an amazing and valuable world saving crop like a lot of people want to believe it is. We want to believe it's that awesome, but it's not. Useful crop that our farmers ought to be allowed to grow, you bet. Total game changer, saviour of the planet, nah.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by museman on October 04, 2008 at 21:22:26 PT
commonsense
You can follow the course that you see, and I will mine.I've already tested the waters of the 'government' the 'law' and 'being busted.' I told them what I say now. I am still free, I have no impending threats to my liberty that is any different from anyone elses.I choose however to live in a reality that I percieve, and no amount of guns and their attending bearers is going to affect that choice, because they haven't a clue as to what it is, how its done, or how to do anything effectively to stop it, all that can be done is to wave the guns and plattitudes in my face.I am so aware that those who haven't seen a reality outside of the concrete boxed sets of contrived, forced, un-natural lifestyles of the amerikan dream (nightmare) have a hard time understanding the power that lies in pure, uncorrupted truth and the un-afraid application of it, without the S.O.P. of capitulating and compromising with things that that are aggrievous to our psyche, and our spirit- I am aware that such things as real dreams are made of are held to be invalid by the limited perception of materialism, and that belief systems invested within those limitations cannot be 'convinced' of anything they don't already embrace within that small and finite scope. I am aware that a large (but I'm not convinced it is a 'majority') amount of people believe more in the power of caesar than the power of God ("Whose face is on the coin?") but majority doesn't rule, nor does it make policy, or determine 'law' -if that were the case there are a lot of majority decisions -like the fact that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush still got s/elected that have 'illegally' and deliberately been ignored by the powers that actually do rule. The fact that the system is in error, extremely imbalanced towards error in fact, lends no credence whatsoever to justify its continuance, whether it manages to keep the wool pulled over the 'majority' or not.Compromise with error is only error compounded upon error. How much error are you willing to bend over and take?I'm done with the whole piece of crap, personally. I have witnessed something so much greater than anything the little government of fools and demons has to offer, there is just no more 'buying into it' for me.Everyone has to travel their own path to the end of their journey. I'm not throwing stumbling blocks in any others path, and I'm not going to let the stumbling blocks of aeons of ignorance, finally seeing the light of day, being exposed to reason of a higher kind than that defined by institutionalized materialism get in my way either.I carry no one but myself on these two feet, to the destination I am going. And no one has the right to try and tell me how, when, why, or where I choose to step. I am a sovereign being. I hold no allegience ot any other sovereign but God. Guns or not.Others have stood in front of those guns and defied their FALSE AUTHORITY, history refers often to those as 'patriots' and 'heroes.' (Usually after they are safely dead, and not making waves any more).I've stated my personal dealings with the law, given examples of faith versus fear, lived the factual, actual events, successfully met the BS 'laws' with the TRUTH (..and some people obviously need to research what TRUTH is) and I am telling you and the world that that power is unasasailable by the weak tenents of these false impositions of false power upon the world. Denial serves the needs of those who wish their freedom to pursue the natural gifts of God and nature unhindered by BULLSHIT, much much less than showing the next generations what cowards we are that we cannot stand against the so obvious errors of this system.Is your temporal existence so tenous that you have no faith in the power that brought it to be in the first place? Is the posession of things; property, filthy, polluted (and invented) wealth so damn important that illusions upon illusions must be constantly maintained at incredible expense of energy lives, and time spent and wasted on futile activities for the sake of a few corrupt individuals?I personally, think, and believe not.I have a song that covers it rather well....
Not The Way You Think It Is
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by HempWorld on October 04, 2008 at 14:28:28 PT
Commonsense you are wrong about hemp ...
Hemp a Cheap Alternative To Fossil FuelsOct. 12, 2007 Author Ian Haines © News Record Ohio -- With an election just around the corner in 2008 we as young Americans are most concerned with our futures as well as the next generation. Hot topics on Capitol Hill are global warming, dependence on foreign fuels and the search for a renewable fuel source. All of which could be solved with the utilization of hemp. In July 2005, Cornell University published a study saying it is not economical to produce ethanol or biodiesel from corn and other crops. The study confirmed what other studies have shown in the past. Namely that hemp is by far the most superior crop to use for fuel.The vegetable sources that are currently (legally) available are insufficient. Hemp is the only proven source for economical biomass fuels. Biomass is the term used to describe all biologically produced matter, according to Lynn Osburn, the author of Energy Farming in America. She also writes methanol powered automobiles and reduced emissions from coal-fired power plants can be accomplished by biomass conversion to fuel utilizing pyrolysis technology, and at the same time save the American family farm while turning the American heartland into a prosperous source of clean energy production. Pyrolysis refers to the rapid thermal decomposition of biomass and organic compounds in the absence of oxygen to produce liquids, gases and char (also called flash pyrolysis). The hemp crop itself would not only provide cleaner air and, once converted into fuel, burn cleaner, but it would also provide more economic stability for our countries farmers. Osburn writes, "Farmers must be allowed to grow an energy crop capable of producing 10 tons per acre in 90 to 120 days. It must be able to grow in all climactic zones in America." Hemp is drought resistant, making it an ideal crop in the dry western regions of the country. Hemp is the only biomass resource capable of making America energy independent. And our government outlawed it in 1938. "The argument against hemp production does not hold up to scrutiny: hemp grown for biomass makes very poor grade marijuana," according to HEMP Q & A at The Ohio State University. "The 20 to 40 million Americans who smoke marijuana would loath to smoke hemp grown for biomass, so a farmer's hemp biomass crop is worthless as marijuana." "When farmers can make a profit growing energy, it will not take long to get six percent of continental American land mass into cultivation of biomass fuel- enough to replace our economy's dependence on fossil fuels," Osburn said. "The threat of global greenhouse warming and adverse climactic change will diminish. To keep costs down, pyrolysis reactors need to be located close to the energy farms. This necessity will bring life back to our small towns by providing jobs locally." Hemp is the number one biomass producer on Earth. This energy crop can be harvested with equipment readily available. It can be "cubed" by modifying hay-cubing equipment. This method condenses the bulk, reducing trucking costs from the field to the reactor. And the biomass cubes are ready for conversion with no further treatment, according to Osburn. Hemp provides jobs, renewing the economic prosperity of farmers. Hemp is also a clean and efficient renewable fuel source, while still keeping the main concern at bay. As always, the power of this nation is in the hands of its people and it is time for this nation to flourish under the legalization of industrial hemp, as it did in the past. Hemp is currently not used as a biofuel because it is not grown on a large scale for this purpose. Also, the process of converting cellulose to ethanol has also not been implemented on a large scale.Why do you think, Commonsense that Hemp was made illegal in the first place? You can read it here:http://hempworld.com/hemp-cyberfarm_com/htms/conspiracy/backgrounds.html#Real Reason 2Hey Museman, I love your contributions, keep it up.
On a mission from God!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by Commonsense on October 04, 2008 at 14:06:57 PT
Museman
Museman, the "false 'law' and the false 'authority' of government" are backed up with armies of gun carrying soldiers. We're kind of stuck with them. You can refuse to recognize their authority if you want, but that's not going to get you very far if you get arrested. We're not going to get rid of the government. We can ignore their laws to an extent, provided we don't let them catch us, but then we aren't really ignoring their laws, are we? We have to recognize their power.
Government is not all bad. The people can work within the system and change the laws to laws more of their liking. It takes a long time to do that, and we're going to need to support of the majority to change the marijuana laws. Right now the majority of Americans want marijuana to remain illegal. The laws are not going to change until that changes, and the laws probably won't change right away when that changes because nothing moves quickly in government and the real power brokers in government are always old guy out of touch with the average person on the street. That, and yes they are beholden to those powerful interests who fund their campaigns. What we can do is try to work within the system to change the laws. We have to get the people on our side and we have to get the government on our side. Both can help us with the other. Personally, I don't think it's the corporations that are really standing in our way. It's the people who have genuine fears about marijuana. They think if it's legal everyone is going to smoke it. They do worry about the children. They worry about productivity going down. They worry that increased marijuana use will lead to increased hard drug use. They worry that increased marijuana use will lead to more crime, more driving while intoxicated, and just in general more harm to innocent people. I think conservatives often believe that smoking marijuana turns people into liberals. And Democrats are certainly not immune to irrational fears of marijuana. Democrat drug warriors have passed many a nanny state drug law. As for the corporation, I think that if marijuana or hemp were so useful they'd have already figured out a way to profit from it and would have gotten the government to allow it. Look at hemp. It's already legal in several countries. What's it being used for mostly? Mostly it's being used for novelty products: novelty clothing, cosmetics and foods. Is it being used on a commercial scale as a biofuel feedstock? No. Why? Because there are other more productive biofuel feedstocks from which producers can squeeze more gallons of either biodiesel or ethanol per acre than they can from hemp. Hemp can be used for a lot of things, but the bottom line is that in most cases there are other things that can be used that either work better or are cheaper to use than hemp. If that were not the case, we'd see the hemp industry in parts of the world where it is legal growing by leaps and bounds and we'd see lobbying efforts in this country to make hemp legal so American farmers could produce it and American manufacturers could get cheap supplies of it to make their products. Big business wouldn't fight it. Farmers wouldn't fight it. If it was so much better than everything else they'd be pushing the government to let them produce it and use it to make all that money they could make from it.As for the pharmaceutical companies, they might have a little more to worry about, but I don't think that marijuana is nearly the threat to them that some people think it is. It's not a wonder drug that cures anything that ails you. It helps some people treat some health conditions. It doesn't help everyone who tries it, and most people don't want any part of it, or they'd be using it already. If it were that big of a threat to the pharmaceutical companies, we'd see it cutting into their business in a major way in states and countries where medical marijuana is allowed. I assure you the pharmaceutical companies are still cleaning up in California, in Canada, in the Netherlands, and so on. Why pharmaceutical companies give so much money to groups like the Partnership for a Drug Free America and so on? That's just public relations. They sell a lot of hardcore narcotics and other drugs that are being diverted from legitimate purposes and being abused like crazy in this country. So, they pump money into these anti-drug abuse organizations to look like they are responsible entities to try to stop public opinion and these anti-drug organization from turning on them. If we want marijuana to be legal, we are going to have to work within the system to get that done. We've got to work to sway public opinion. We've got to work to get politicians on our side. We've got to keep pushing these ballot initiatives through. Sitting back and claiming that the government has no legitimacy and/or coming up with a conspiracy theories for why marijuana isn't legal will get us nowhere.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by museman on October 04, 2008 at 12:01:55 PT
whose damn business is it anyway..
How much herb I manage to grow or not?The 'argument' of 'how much' is merely another ploy of an unconscionable 'legal' system that bases its 'logic' on who is worthy to make money.The paharmaceutical companies, and their doctor-drug-dealers don't seem to have any problem exploiting peoples suffering, and the f-in government doesn't have any problem either.Its straight up cultural prejudice, which as far as I know makes it essentially unconstitutional.The fact that corporations like haliburton -the real governments, make ultra profit from supplying war toys to destroy countries, and then the contracts to 'rebuild' them, doesn't seem to bother these people who are screaming about 'too much pot' and 'don't let those pot smokers make any money on it.'Personally I don't like the idea of selling sacrament, but in terms of 'equal protection under the law' (A constitutional condition hardly ever looked at for all of its implications and potentials) why should the selling or making of profit from one medicine, be distiunguished from another? No good reason whatsoever.I think the prohibtionist -who is also most likely a republican-oriented mentality- is an example of hypocrisy of extreme kind; screaming about how much pot is necessary for anyone to have or grow, when they are supporting, promoting, upholding, and creating destruction and hell on earth for far too many people -without any realistic accountability of any kind.The fact that cannabis made acccessable to the people would most likely be the beginning of the end for pharma profitability is the real issue here. Cannabis is the biggest threat to the stability of the status quo since Thomas Jefferson and John Adams took on the financiers that wanted to make George Washington king, and we got the US Constitution and most importantly the Bill of Rights.Compromising with demons never got anyone anywhere. The mindset of the prohibitionist is demonic, pure and simple; they lie, cheat, steal, make war, hurt people and get some kind of perverse satisfaction out of it, and then claim 'high morals' and claim 'the law' demands such demonic behavior.God (by whatever name) created cannabis for just the kind of things that the suits and limo-riders are so afraid of; a source of food, fuel, fibre, medicine, and a potential for a divine spiritual interface -all easily gotten without the interfering ways of an immoral, unethical, and in the purest sense of LAW, illegal government.When the people stop giving their power to a corrupt system (which is happening invisibly to the televised versions of 'reality') that corrupted power will diminish and their reign of terror and false authority will end. But of course when you argue against that FACT, you support the status quo and all of its falsness, thereby aiding and abetting its perpetuity, and continuing its propped up validity.Freedom should not be for sale, but anyone who thinks that freedom is not a commodity in Amerika, or elsewhere for that matter, is either a clandestine supporter of the status quo, duped, or an 'upstanding' member of that false society.Cannabis 'legality' is the crux issue of personal liberty and freedom. If we allow the false 'law' and the false 'authority' of government (and in a system that claims to be a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' that is anything but, that authority is made false by the sheer hypocrisy of its actions and real effects on reality -which are nothing but destructive exploitation of the world for the benefit of a few)to continue as it has been, freedom and liberty will diminish even more than it already has.Criminals are created by society. A society that creates so many, as this one has, has some very deep problems. This country is sick, and cannabis can and will heal it. Wasting time, energy, and purpose on side distractions as to 'how much pot can a medical user grow' is just a ruse to divert vital purpose and energy into stupid, shallow debates reminiscent of the Great Debate of 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.'FREE ALASKAN THUNDERF--K FOR EVERYONE
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 03, 2008 at 15:14:49 PT
CommonSense
I understand what you are saying. I look at changing anything in society as a slow process. Scaring people turns people off and they then won't listen to reason. I've said it before that we share our country with all ages, races and ideologies. We should represent this cause in a special considerate way because we are under the spot light and it does matter.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 14:53:24 PT
BGreen, FOM
If it were up to me anyone anywhere could grow as much as they want and there would be no need to have a medical marijuana card or to even be growing it for medical purposes. It would just be completely legal. But it's not up to me. There are laws against growing marijuana. Only a few states have medical marijuana programs. For reasons I've discussed below there are always going to be limits.One good thing about limits maybe is that if they do keep selling down to a minimum that would be helpful for the cause in general. Everytime they bust somebody who is obviously abusing the system and just trying to get rich as a drug dealer, it really hurts the image of these medical marijuana programs. It lends credence to the "medical marijuana is nothing but a scam" talk we hear from the likes of John Walters and people who share his views. It makes it harder for us to get medical marijuana laws passed in other states. If you live in some place like California or Oregon where they already have medical marijuana, it's not that big of a deal. But if you live in one of the 38 states that don't have medical marijuana programs it is a big deal. People that are abusing the system are hurting the rest of us who would like to get medical marijuana laws passed in our states. The best thing for the rest of us would be for people to see that medical marijuana programs in other states are above board and really work, that they are helping people and not being just terribly abused.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 03, 2008 at 14:43:21 PT
Thanks
I don't read forums about growing so this is interesting. I did check them out now and then years ago but so much bragging made me decide the information might not be correct.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2008 at 14:29:58 PT
FoM and commonsense
My point is that it can vary greatly between people. There are books and websites about growing cannabis. There are even more books and websites about cooking, but we all know that some people are just much better cooks than others, even using the same ingredients and recipes.I'd say set the limit at 25 to 30 flowering plants and 50 to 60 immature plants in order to account for male plants and those that don't make it to full maturity due to any number of environmental and human variables. The grower doesn't have to rush to get another crop done when they have a sufficient supply, but we ought to allow them to have some cushion for their medicine supply in case of a crop failure.I agree with FoM that we should just let it go and only worry about those who are actually caught selling it, but that wouldn't be as easy, only fair and just.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 14:15:13 PT
FOM
I found this "Cannabis Yields and Dosage" report from Safe Access Now. It's a report they use to lobby for a higher plant count and finished product limits. They call for a plant limit of 99 plants to stay under the 100 plants that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence under federal law. I've heard before and they say that plant count doesn't really matter. They say that what people really should look at is the "canopy size" and recommend a limit on total canopy size of 100 square feet. They say that regardelss of how many plants a grower grows on average indoor growers will produce around a half an ounce per square foot of flowering space, and that half or less of the actual growing space will be used for flowering. Now, you're talking about flowering under a 1000 watt light, I'm guessing a high pressure sodium bulb. From what I understand growers like to use 50 watts of HPS per square foot. Some use a little more, some less. Anyway, at 50 watts per square foot, 1000 watts would cover 20 square feet. If they produce a half an ounce per square foot, they'll get 10 ounces per flowering cycle. On some of these growing forums, I've seen a lot of people claim yields of 2 ounces per square feet, but the consensus seems to be that's a really lucky yield. At 2 ounces per square foot, the yield would be 40 ounces in a flowering cycle. These guys on these growing forums probably exaggerate a lot, but they all seem to talk like they are getting a good ounce per square foot, and if that is what people really get on average then the average would be 20 ounces per flowering cycle. It's hard to know who to believe. I have to think Safe Access Now is probably understating actual average yields and some of these growers bragging about their crops on the net are overstating theirs. Here's a link to the Safe Access Now report: http://www.safeaccessnow.net/pdf/cannabisyieldsdosage-rgb.pdf
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 13:57:03 PT
BGreen
Like I was saying to runruff, there is no way to get around having limits. The majority in this country think that sick people who need it ought to have acces to medical marijuana. Most of them don't want the system being abused though. They don't want medical marijuana growers to grow pot and sell it. The majority of voters and of course the government are always going to demand limits. I bet they do the same when we finally legalize marijuana and regulate it similar to alcohol. If home growing is allowed they'll want to limit the amount people can grow so they aren't out selling it, just like the amounts of beer and wine people can produce where it's allowed are subject to limits. If limits aren't set just too low, they won't be that big of a deal. It might just take better planning or different growing techniques to keep a steady supply. If the plant count limit is too low then maybe growing from seed will not be a good idea. Maybe people ought to try to get female clones and grow those instead. With low finsished product limits it doesn't seem like outdoor grows would be a good idea. Frequent smaller harvests might be necessary. Are there any websites for medical growers that counsel them on the best methods for growing a steady supply while staying within the limits of their state's medical marijuana laws.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 03, 2008 at 13:52:11 PT
OK A Question
If a person flowers about half of the fifteen allowed under a 1000 watt light how much will 7 or so plants yield?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 13:30:35 PT
runruff
The object is get the government to pass reasonable laws we can live with. We don't want anyone to have to do any time over marijuana, but we're kind of stuck with the laws that we've got and people who engage in conduct not allowed sometimes goes to prison. That's just what we have to live with. I think people in states with medical marijuana should feel lucky to have that. We don't have it in my state. It's not legal in most states. These medical marijuana laws are always going to be kind of a compromise. Those against medical marijuana and those who might be okay with it but are worried about abuse of the system are always going to want to limit the number of plants people can grow and the amount of finished product they can possess. Ideally we get the limits set high enough that patients really can ensure a steady supply of medicine sufficient for their needs. Those most against it seem to want to set the limits ridiculously low. Others seem to want to set really high plant counts and finished product limits that seem far higher than could possibly be necessary. I'm just sort of wondering out loud about how low a plant count could even the heavier users really get by with? What's reasonable? What can we actually get to pass in other states? I'm thinking about the big picture, getting medical marijuana legal in other states, having limits set that are high enough for people to get what they need but low enough that we don't scare off too many voters.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by mykeyb420 on October 03, 2008 at 13:27:51 PT
How much could you get from fifteen plants?
cheech and chong said it best:Q: How many joints can you get from a kilo of pot?A: Two.two?Yeah man, I roll big joints.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by FoM on October 03, 2008 at 13:21:53 PT
Confusion
The whole limit issue is hard to understand. A person's garden can get spider mites and lose everything. That's nature. The variations of the amount different people might use is large. Cooking uses more I think. Why can't they stop worrying about the volume of plants and if a person gets caught selling then treat it accordingly. I wish it was legal and free but maybe approaching it that way could work.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by BGreen on October 03, 2008 at 13:08:24 PT
Amounts grown can differ greatly
The problems with placing limits on amounts of plants is that you're not taking into consideration the many variables involved.If you only allow patients to grow a certain number based on assumptions of yield, the patient could very well find themselves without any medicine if they have grow a strain that inherently produces small yields or have any problems at all in their garden.There's nothing wrong with a medical patient having enough cannabis to last through a failed crop. Making a sick person worry about whether or not they'll have enough medicine is barbaric. In fact, three or four months without their medicine may be too much for some sick people to take.Commonsense, you should believe most of the reports of high yields from the internet as much as you should believe law enforcement and their kilo per plant weight applied even to seedlings. Neither are even close to the average grower's garden.Yes, outdoors it's possible to have substantial yields, but indoors in the types of gardens most people can afford, you'll be lucky to average an ounce per plant. Depending on the quality of genetics used, the quality can also vary greatly, requiring more cannabis for the patient to achieve the desired therapeutic effects.What about the fact that there's a 50% chance that your adult plants grown from seeds will be male and therefor useless? Now, the seven or eight female plants you have left have you majorly stressed out because you realize you have to wait two more months for this half crop to be ready and then another three months for your next crop to be ready.These limits are really useless except to give police more powers to attack users of the cannabis plant.God put no limits on the amount of cannabis grown, so I really don't care what (the) man says.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 13:07:40 PT
FOM
If 24 ounces would be enough for a person for a whole year you'd think they could easily do that with 15 plants grown outdoors, but 24 ounces would amount to less than a half ounce a week and from I understand quite a few people use a lot more than that. It would also be really hard outdoors I think to keep the final bud weight at 24 ounces or less since you don't really know how well a plant will do outdoors. One plant might very well produce more than 24 ounces while others produce none. Some states will only let people have an ounce or two of finished product and they have even lower plant count limits. They'd have to grow indoors and have some staggered system where they have a small plant or two finish up every week or two just to keep a steady supply without going over the limit. In Montana, for instance, they can only have one ounce and six plants. I don't know how they could keep a steady supply and stay within the legal limits unless they are half a gram a day or less types and they have a really good system for growing small plants with new small plant or two harvests coming in all the time. Maybe they could have just one mother plant and take a couple of cuttings every couple of weeks and stick one in the flowering chamber soon after it takes root along with two plants that began flowering at different times before, so they'd have a new harvest every couple of weeks. But everything would have to work just perfectly for them to be able to ensure constant harvests with so few plants and so little margin for error or loss from pests or mold or mildew or disease. It doesn't seem possible. Setting the limits that low sets people up for failure and makes it just too tempting for them to exceed the plant count limit.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by runruff on October 03, 2008 at 12:40:22 PT
How much is too much?
Even the smallest amount of intervention by politicians and LEOs into my medical regimen is too much!There is no regulated amount of booze or stogies I can have
but they want to mess with my medicine! What's wrong with this picture?I think it should be illegal for gov'ment workers to drink during working hours. No more tee martuni lunches. Take a 50% hit in your medical insurance if you suck down the nicotine. If you are a public servant and smoke you will cost tax payers in huge medical cost later on in life.My advice is to grow and enjoy but then I've done time for taking my own advice. har har!It is raining hard today. Nice !Enjoy your day today. If you are free and healthy you are especially blessed!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 03, 2008 at 11:06:26 PT
Commonsense
I don't know either but if it would be possible to grow 15 plants inside for a long time and transfer them outside at some point in the summer I think that would make a good once a year amount. Maybe someone else can say something else. Also what if there is more then one person in a household with a medical exemption. Does the amount double per exemption then?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by Commonsense on October 03, 2008 at 10:55:22 PT
How much could you get from fifteen plants?
I've never grown pot. I've only read about it. When you look at some of these growing forums online you see people getting these incredible yields. Now I'm sure many of them exaggerate, tell fish stories, but aren't there ways to get quite a lot from a fifteen plant setup where the grower has maybe a mother plant or two, a few flowering and a few fattening up to go into the flowering room? When the general public thinks about these grows with 90 or 100 plants, they tend to think of big trees producing pounds of buds. It's hard to sell them on the need for dozens of marijuana plants for one person. Law enforcement types advocate for the tiniest amounts, and those on the other side advocate for what seems like huge amounts of marijuana and huge numbers of plants for one person. If people put their clones in big containers and actually let them bush out for a couple of months before flowering can't they get a lot from a few plants grown indoors? We're always going to have a lot of people complaining that medical growers are growing way more than they need and selling the rest. And probably a lot of that does go on. How many plants could even a heavy user growing indoors get by with without running out all the time?
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment