Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...its the mom and pop dopers stealing from the rest of us and destroying the environment
And we can t even feed people but were supposed to support your dope growing... no way
Who is asking for support?
What exactly are the mom and pops stealing from you? I do not think you realize that there are two different types here. The 'money' crop and the 'medical' crop. Those that grow for medical, grow organic. Those that grow for money are the ones that create all the problems. The money guy up from me several years back contaminated the creek that ran through the family land. It was not pretty and I was extremely pissed! So do not think that I am blind to the bad side of the industry.
While I am pro grow, I expect it to be done properly. Organic, just like my food. Done in an environmentally sound manner, and done with the intent and love of the medicinal values and not for the money. Conscientious growers do not like the 'money' growers any more than you do, if anything they did like them more so because they give the good growers a bad name.
Last edited by OwlKaMyst; 08-18-2014 at 12:17 AM..
Reason: typo
What other drug do we allow as a nation to be self produced ?
None... for a 1000 good reasons .
Medical marijuana is a farce. . Maybe 1-3 percent of the people who get it actually could find some medical benefit from it. The rest just want to get high nursemaided by the rest of us...
Organic... you mean really organic according to the California health and safety code... or marijuana grower organic... which means nothing... pollution comes in many forms and marijuana gives plenty ... again... its a noxious non native weed..
If there is not enough water to grow food... 500000 fallow food acres in California ...should we as a state still support your "medicine" ...hell no..feed people first before we use resources to get them high
By the way...here in the Emerald triangle 95 percent of grows are out of compliance with regulations dopers had a say in passing...why should we believe anyone whose life focus is drugs...
Each plant can net up to 6000 dollars....we don't allow that with alcohol... why should we support drugs...
Dope growers as a whole cannot be trusted in any manner ... they are not stewards of the planet... they are as bad as any fat cat developer... worse
Last edited by notmeofficer; 08-18-2014 at 07:16 AM..
Your numbers are entertaining.....because they are wrong.
Where do you get this stuff? From the media?
Have you never heard the saying 'believe none of what you hear and half of what you see'. The media has an agenda, they are not telling you the whole real truth. But if you want to take what they say as 100%, nothing I can do about that as I see you really like assumptions and take them to be truths.
You say why should you believe someone whose main focus is drugs- I suspect you are not being general here. Personally it is not my main focus. Just because I have spent over 20 years in the Emerald Triangle and on the opposite side of the fence as you, does not make me a liar. I've seen this stuff up close. But that still does not make it my main focus.
BTW- current going price for a lb is not even close to $6,000. It is $700-1100. AND- No I don't sell it. It's not how I make my money. I make money with my art, that is my main focus.
mr grower.. a prime plant can net six pounds,,, old mother sativa strains can grow to 30 feet tall... many plants being grown on the coast now reach 15 feet tall... indoor plants produce much less... probably a pound per plant on average,,, but you know all this dont you... so why not tell the truth
The below article is why we must aggressively defend our state from druggies who have no conscience about how they are harming our environment....
"West’s historic drought stokes fears of water crisis
Aquifers drop to dangerously low levels, and question of response prompts a sharp debate.
Aug. 12, 2014 Fields of rice on Joe Carrancho’s farm in Maxwell, Calif., are close to ready for harvest. But the worst drought in the state’s recorded history is hitting farmers in the Central Valley hard. Max Whittaker/Prime/For The Washington Post
By Joby Warrick August 17 at 7:21 PM
WILLOWS, Calif. — When the winter rains failed to arrive in this Sacramento Valley town for the third straight year, farmers tightened their belts and looked to the reservoirs in the nearby hills to keep them in water through the growing season.
When those faltered, some switched on their well pumps, drawing up thousands of gallons from underground aquifers to prevent their walnut trees and alfalfa crops from drying up. Until the wells, too, began to fail.
Now, across California’s vital agricultural belt, nervousness over the state’s epic drought has given way to alarm. Streams and lakes have long since shriveled up in many parts of the state, and now the aquifers — always a backup source during the region’s periodic droughts — are being pumped away at rates that scientists say are both historic and unsustainable.
One state-owned well near Sacramento registered an astonishing 100-foot drop in three months as the water table, strained by new demand from farmers, homeowners and municipalities, sank to a record low. Other wells have simply dried up, in such numbers that local drilling companies are reporting backlogs of six to eight months to dig a new one.
In still other areas, aquifers are emptying so quickly that the land itself is subsiding, like cereal in a bowl after the milk has drained out.
California’s record drought brought very little snowpack this past winter, placing extra demands on the state’s aquifers.
“How many straws can you stick into one glass?” asked John Viegas, a county supervisor who, after months of fielding complaints from constituents about water shortages, recently was forced to lower his own well by 40 feet. “People need to realize you can’t water everything.”
The shrinking of the aquifers has added a new dimension to the concerns over the historic drought that continues to shatter records across the Western United States. The parched zone now spans a dozen states and nearly 600 counties, from southern Texas to the northern Rockies, and includes fields and grazing land that produce a third of the country’s beef cattle and half of its fruit, vegetables and winter wheat. Prices for most of these products have soared this year.
Hardest hit is California. As of last month, nearly 60 percent of the state is officially in an “exceptional” drought — the highest level, above “severe” — and meteorologists are seeing no immediate change in a relentlessly dry forecast. Indeed, scientists are warning that the state’s cyclical droughts could become longer and more frequent as the climate warms.
If that happens, the elaborate infrastructure built to deliver water to the state’s 38 million residents and 27 million cultivated acres may not survive the challenge, new research suggests. Already the drought has led to the “greatest water loss ever seen in California agriculture,” said a study last month by researchers at the University of California at Davis.
A massive shift to groundwater helped farmers survive this year, but if pumping continues at current rates, some of the state’s aquifers could soon be depleted, the study warned. One of the authors, Richard Howitt, a professor emeritus of resource economics, likened the problem to a “slow-moving train wreck.”
“A well-managed basin is used like a reserve bank account,” Howitt said. “We’re acting like the super rich who have so much money they don’t need to balance their checkbook.”
The study estimated that 5.1 million acre-feet of water will be pulled from the state’s underground reserves this year, a volume roughly equivalent to the storage capacity of Lake Shasta, the state’s biggest reservoir and third-largest lake after Lake Tahoe and the Salton Sea.
Joe Carrancho has had to fallow 25% of his rice acreage due to a lack of water. (Max Whittaker/Prime/For The Washington Post)
Damage to aquifers is viewed as more serious because, once depleted, an aquifer takes far longer to replenish — often decades or more, compared with a few years for an empty reservoir, said Thomas Harter, a groundwater specialist from the university’s Land, Air and Water Resources department.
“It’s a downward path,” he said. “We cannot do what we did this year on a permanent basis.”
Worst drought on record
Droughts in California are hardly new. Big ones come around every decade or two, the Western equivalent of the super-hurricanes that occasionally strike the East. The archeological record points to far worse droughts in the distant past, including some that lasted more than 50 years.
But that was before millions of people lived along the coastal bays, and before the state’s great Central Valley sprouted one of the most productive agricultural districts in the history of the planet.
Still, the current drought is the worst in California’s recorded history, and some of the costs are as visible as the retreating shorelines and bone-dry marinas of the state’s fresh-water lakes. Dozens of California cities and towns have imposed tough restrictions on water use and many have posted fines of up to $500 a day on violators. In the state’s parched woodlands, fire crews chased 140 new wildfires in just the past week.
Large cities such as Los Angeles have coped with the water shortage so far by drawing from dedicated reservoirs constructed after previous dry spells, part of a celebrated “drought-proofing” effort promoted by politicians and urban planners. But those stores of water could also be threatened if the drought continues, scientists say. State officials have already had to scramble to find drinking water for smaller towns and villages where supplies have all but run out.
In the state’s farm belt, the drought’s effects are less obvious, obscured by miles of still-lush walnut orchards and vast rice plantations where the knee-high green stalks mature in shallow pools of brown water. But the damage has been severe, here, too. Some of it is visible in dry irrigation ditches and barren fields belonging to farmers who received no water allotment this year. Other wounds are hidden, such as aquifers that became contaminated with salt or farm chemicals after months of overpumping, or household wells that now pull up nothing but air.
It was never supposed to get this bad. For decades, the Central Valley’s farmers relied on their own form of drought-proofing: a vast network of reservoirs and irrigation canals built over years to capture annual snow melt from the Sierra Nevada mountains. And to recoup the costs of expensive irrigation systems, they switched to more profitable crops such as almonds, walnuts and rice, which require still more water.
But no one counted on having consecutive seasons in which the mountain snows never arrived. This year, the high peaks have been all but bare, causing the already depleted reservoirs to drop further. What was left in the canals had to be divvied up among thousands of farmers based on a complex seniority ranking, with large quantities set aside by law to ensure the survival of natural wetlands and salmon fisheries downstream.
Jeffrey Sutton, who supervises 140 miles of irrigation channels in the western Sacramento Valley for the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority, warned his customers to expect less water this year. It was even worse than he feared: While some farmers ended up with 75 percent of their usual allotment, many others received nothing at all.
“This was the first year it ever went to zero,” Sutton said from an office overlooking the network’s cement-lined main channel. “You can’t allocate water that’s not there.”
Some farmers could afford to cut back on spring planting, but those with permanent crops — peach orchards and almond trees that pay off slowly after years of investment — had to scramble to find alternate supplies. Some paid hefty fees to buy water rights from their neighbors, while others joined the race to drill, installing new wells at a cost of thousands of dollars each.
For Sutton, whose family has farmed the region for three generations, any outing to church or the local store was apt to include an awkward exchange with a neighbor worried about what could happen if the drought lingers for a fourth year.
“It is unparalleled crisis, unlike anything we’ve experienced,” he said. “People are emotional. There’s a fear of losing farms that have been passed through families for generations.”
For Willows, Calif., farmer Joe Carrancho, the immediate worry is how long he can continue paying his 14 employees, men who have tended his rice farm for years and are “damn-near family,” he says. Carrancho, 71, is regarded as one of the luckier ones, having lost only 25 percent of his usual water allotment this year. Still, with a quarter of his fields now idle, he says he will have to stretch to make payroll while keeping up payments on the $500,000 rice harvester sitting in his barn.
“I’d much rather be growing rice here,” said Carrancho, kicking up dust in an empty field of pecan-colored earth beside his modest ranch house. “I have 25 percent less production, but no one is giving me a 25 percent break in my bills.”
Conflicts in state capital
In the state capital, worries over the shrinking water supply have kindled fresh conflicts along the state’s traditional fault lines: rural and urban, environmentalist and property owner, Republican and Democrat. Opposing factions have clashed repeatedly in recent weeks over how the government should address current and future water shortages.
On Wednesday, state lawmakers passed a $7.5 billion bond measure that, if approved by voters this fall, would expand the state’s reservoirs and improve water recycling and other conservation measures. Two separate measures undergoing debate would impose the most significant restrictions on groundwater use in California history.
Farming groups say they are open to compromise, though many in their ranks are scornful of any talk of regulating water that lies under private lands. Many farmers also insist that government agencies helped instigate the current crisis, both by mandating the diversion of millions of gallons of water for environment uses, and by allowing runaway urban development in the some of the state’s driest regions.
Yet, agriculture’s huge appetite for water makes it an easy target for state officials looking for ways to conserve. Irrigation accounts for 41 percent of the state’s water use, compared with 9 percent for urban water systems. And the recent shift to crops such as alfalfa and rice has prompted questions about whether this drought-prone region is suited for water-intensive agriculture.
“We’ve reached a tipping point where the surface water is no longer enough, yet there are increasing demands from both agriculture and the environment,” said hydrologist Graham Fogg, a groundwater management expert.
A short-term solution, strongly favored by growers and some elected officials, is to increase the state’s water storage capacity, either with new or expanded reservoirs or dedicated aquifers underground. Farmers say extra storage will allow them to meet their needs even if droughts become more frequent.
“Our best storage is those mountains,” said organic rice grower Bryce Lundberg, gesturing to the normally snowcapped Sierra Nevada peaks, visible from his fields in Richvale, Calif. “When you see snow up there, the mountains are essentially holding water for California. But if climate change is happening, we need to invest in storage, because if we’re not seeing white mountains, we need to see blue water.”
But environmentalists and many scientists argue that any long-term solution would have to balance competing interests, including the need for clean water for growing cities as well as thriving habitats for fish and wildlife. A recent modeling study by researchers at UC-Davis’s Center for Watershed Sciences suggested that California’s economy could weather far more severe water shortages — and even a decades-long drought similar to the ones that occurred millennia ago. But doing so would require not only more storage for water, but also a general willingness by all sides to make do with less.
“Keeping the balance may mean reducing the number of irrigated acres, but if you manage the system well you can still do amazing things with it,” said Jay Lund, a professor of civil and environmental engineering who participated in the exercise. Lund said he believes Californians are more capable of adjusting, compared with people in other water-challenged parts of the world, because they already possess experience and expertise and “because we happen to be rich, which helps.”
Despite his engineer’s optimism, Lund keeps a prayer of sorts taped to his office door. It is a two-word play on the University of California’s motto, “Fiat Lux,” or, in Latin, “let there be light.”
“Fiat Pluvia,” Lund’s sign reads.
Let there be rain." (End story)
Theres no water for your dope even of we wanted to allocate it..... you sound like a nice person.. and maybe you are one of the few that is really trying to comply..I applaud you... unfortunately you exist in a group of people that have demonstrated they care about one thing only.. dope... and dismiss everything negative that comes along with it...
Monsanto is licking its lips awaiting legalization so it can put you.. and every person like you out of business.. and they will... another issue for another day...
mr grower.. a prime plant can net six pounds,,, old mother sativa strains can grow to 30 feet tall... many plants being grown on the coast now reach 15 feet tall... indoor plants produce much less... probably a pound per plant on average,,, but you know all this dont you... so why not tell the truth
The below article is why we must aggressively defend our state from druggies who have no conscience about how they are harming our environment....
But environmentalists and many scientists argue that any long-term solution would have to
Theres no water for your dope even of we wanted to allocate it.....
Lmao at the way you avoid "spirited discourse" (as you so eloquently call bashing) with my posts, officer. What about the almond orchards?
Your recent strategy of feigning environmental concern to disguise your personal agenda is hilarious.
While we all wait at the edge of our chairs for the officer's next insults, I'll add to my list of questions for him to avoid:
a) do you enjoy a glass of wine, officer? Beer?
b) what about all the California acreage devoted to grapes for making wine?
c) have you also researched the water footprint for making wine? (The answer is a staggering 32 gallons of water per glass of product!)
d) how about how much water to brew beer? (6 barrels of water per 1 barrel of beer - just the brewing process)
What's your position on beer and wine? Should we be committing the land and water we do to these intoxicants when we aren't feeding people first?
Your recent strategy of feigning environmental concern to disguise your personal agenda is hilarious.
Heehee.....keeps me amused!
Officer quotes
"mr grower.. "
That's Ms....
"a prime plant can net six pounds,"
Yes they can, Indicas typically for they have bigger and more dense buds, however, this is not a goal and most plants are at most half that because a 6lb plant is so big it is too hard to manage and for an illegal grow, might as well be the 19th hole on a golf course.
"old mother sativa strains can grow to 30 feet tall... many plants being grown on the coast now reach 15 feet tall.." Sativa is a tall stringy plant to begin with. It is not the fat bushy Indica. Sativa buds are airy and do not produce the weight that a short fat Indica would. Again, too tall too hard to manage. And who are there people on the coast growing 15 footers?
" indoor plants produce much less... probably a pound per plant on average"
Not even close to a pound a plant. A pound plant under the best care would have to be 5 foot tall an 5 foot wide. That's not how indoor growers do it. They do what is called 'sea of green'. Plants are at most 2 feet tall because their grow cycle is cut short by at least 6 weeks. An indoor plant will produce 1/4 lb. at best. Indoor is 'rated' by lights. Average is 3/4 lb per light. If you get 1lb per light, you are doing better than most. Indoor crops are almost always money crops due to the volume and overhead. I think its a rather dumb way, but what ever.
"But you know all this dont you... so why not tell the truth"
I HAVE been telling the truth. What is it that you think I have lied about?
"The below article is why we must aggressively defend our state from druggies who have no conscience about how they are harming our environment...."
Um....coastal growers don't get water from the Sierras, so I am not getting the point you are trying to make.
And to go along with the wine stuff....our water has been diverted to supply the wine industry. Our county would still be ok with our water levels and the current usage, but Sonoma has a fat straw in our water supply.
"West’s historic drought stokes fears of water crisis"
Lets see, several dry winters ...... But it's the pot growers fault?
"Theres no water for your dope even of we wanted to allocate it..... you sound like a nice person.. and maybe you are one of the few that is really trying to comply..I applaud you... unfortunately you exist in a group of people that have demonstrated they care about one thing only.. dope... and dismiss everything negative that comes along with it..."
So the government is going to come on to my land and tap my spring? I don't think so! And as I said before, there are two kinds of grows 'money' and medical...it is the money group that you really have the problem with. And I stand beside you on that issue. The commercial grows are indeed a problem. How is that dismissing the negative?
"Monsanto is licking its lips awaiting legalization so it can put you.. and every person like you out of business.. and they will... another issue for another day..."
Can you not retain what you read? My life is not all about Marijuana, and how will Monsanto or Phillip Morris going to put me out of business? I don't grow for money. I make my money from my art. My life is about art, got that?
Location: Mokelumne Hill, CA & El Pescadero, BCS MX.
6,957 posts, read 22,309,298 times
Reputation: 6471
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
MJ is a noxious weed...
Actually it isn't a weed at all and occurs throughout the plains states as a native forb.
What's happened to it since then through cultivars is a subject I'm not going to delve into, but if you want to demonize it, go for it. Just try to keep the facts the facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
