Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Future of Wash., Colo. pot farming still uncertain


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 dudeone

dudeone

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined: 17-February 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

Future of Wash., Colo. pot farming still uncertain

By SHANNON DININNY | Associated Press – Sat, Jan 19, 2013

http://news.yahoo.co...-204904082.html


YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) — Irrigation canals line Washington's Yakima Valley east of the Cascade Range, transforming a desert landscape into one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world — including crops for some of America's biggest vices.


Thousands of acres of wine grapes dot the landscape, contributing to Washington's No. 2 rank for premium wine production behind California. Farmers grow more than two-thirds of U.S. hops for big beer companies and craft brewers alike, and a large tobacco field is flourishing on a valley Indian reservation.


Now that Washington voters have legalized marijuana, will a region long recognized as one of the country's leading fruit bowls, best celebrated for Washington apples, become known as the vice belt? Not necessarily.


Too many unanswered questions remain about the new law, from how the state will regulate it to whether entrepreneurs or large corporations should lead the way. And the biggest question: the federal government's role going forward.


Marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Many states have approved it for medical use, but only Washington and Colorado have legalized it for recreational use.


The Justice Department has not said whether it will try to block the two states from implementing their new laws, passed late last year. For that reason, key land-grant universities that typically aid the agriculture industry by researching such things as pest control and crop yields — but rely on federal funding to do so — are avoiding the marijuana industry altogether.


In addition, marijuana is a crop that can't be insured, and federal drug law bars banks from knowingly serving the industry.


Any combination of those factors makes farmers leery of planting marijuana in the near term, said Bob Young, chief economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.


"At this stage of the game, it poses tremendous problems for growers," he said. "Quite frankly, I'd tell one of our members to approach this with great caution."


Both states are in the process of developing rules for a legal marijuana industry. In Washington state, a Liquor Control Board that privatized liquor sales statewide last year on orders of a different voter-approved initiative now is tasked with developing rules governing pot cultivation, processing and sales.


Of the three licenses the board will authorize — grower, processor, seller — the rules for producing marijuana raise the most complex issues, according to Randy Simmons, project manager for the Liquor Control Board.


How many farmers should be allowed to produce marijuana in order to meet demand, and how big should their crops be? Where should they get their seeds? Should a crop be grown indoors or in fields outside?


Dozens of marijuana experts, who have been growing plants for medical use or in secret for illegal use, are educating state officials about the potential for the crop.


Probably 95 percent of those people choose to grow their plants indoors, despite higher costs, to control light and temperature, improve quality and increase yields, Simmons said.


Indoor crops generally allow for up to three harvests per season, compared to just one harvest for an outdoor crop, and allow for easier security measures.


As Simmons said, "Somebody out picking a handful of grapes isn't going to get stoned. So if we go through this process and determine outdoor grows are OK, we have to determine security standards."


Security is a concern for Gail Besemer, who grows flowers and vegetables near Deming, Wash., and has expressed interest in a producers' license.


Besemer already has three hoop houses, which are essentially temporary greenhouses, but could see expanding her business slightly to grow marijuana for a local clientele in northwest Washington.


However, "I'm concerned about druggies invading my property — ne'er-do-wells invading my property to steal, to get free dope," she said. "Security would be an issue."

Besemer, who is in her 60s, said she has never grown marijuana or used it, but can see potential for the crop.


"My family is not particularly excited about me being interested in this. But if someone has an integrated farm, growing a number of different crops, I would think it would be a high profit plant," she said. "Taxation and security might get in the way of profits, and it might end not being so profitable.


"I'll just have to wait and see about the regulations," she said.


The Colorado Farm Bureau opposed the law there and says none of its members have expressed interest because they are unwilling to take the risk, according to Nicholas Colglazier, the group's director of public policy.


Few traditional farmers, like Besemer, have expressed interest in Washington.


Simmons acknowledged that there are still many unanswered questions, but said answers will come with new state regulations this year. But he said he could envision an industry that allows for both boutique growers with higher quality marijuana and large outdoor growers to get a cheaper product on the market.


"You're always going to see people looking for specific strains and varieties," he said. "It's like drinking Budweiser or a microbrew."

Edited by dudeone, 20 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.

  • 0

#2 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 January 2013 - 04:17 PM

The farm industry is unwilling to take the risk because King Obama won't want to abandon his archaic executive authority over the ridiculous war on drugs.
  • 0

#3 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

The farm industry is unwilling to take the risk because King Obama won't want to abandon his archaic executive authority over the ridiculous war on drugs.

???

It is not executive authority.

It is federal authority conferred by federal legislation principally under Title 21 of the United States Code governing Food and Drugs and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970).
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#4 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:22 PM


???

It is not executive authority.

It is federal authority conferred by federal legislation principally under Title 21 of the United States Code governing Food and Drugs and the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (Oct. 27, 1970).

Um, what? His executive authority is because the Department of Justice oversees the War on Drugs. He has the authority over that department, being he's the executive of that cabinet, it's his choice to continue the War on Drugs despite suggesting scaling it back as part of his 2008 campaign gimmick. Nice try though.

Edited by zaibatsu, 20 January 2013 - 06:25 PM.

  • 0

#5 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

[size=4]
Um, what? His executive authority is because the Department of Justice oversees the War on Drugs. He has the authority over that department, being he's the executive of that cabinet, it's his choice to continue the War on Drugs despite suggesting scaling it back as part of his 2008 campaign gimmick. Nice try though.

You do not understand the difference. This is not founded upon his executive authority but rather federal legislation.

"Obama -- as candidate and as president -- and his drug czar have already repeatedly talked about scaling back the war on drugs. But it's been all talk," Tom Angell, spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said. "Drug Czar Kerlikowske, in his very first interview with the Wall Street Journal after taking office, declared the end of the 'war on drugs' terminology. He has repeatedly said that this is a health and not just a crime issue. But the problem is: the drug control budget still overwhelmingly devotes more resources to old, failed punishment strategies than effective treatment and prevention strategies. The rhetoric doesn't match the reality."
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#6 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,087 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:50 PM

You do not understand the difference. This is not founded upon his executive authority but rather federal legislation.

"Obama -- as candidate and as president -- and his drug czar have already repeatedly talked about scaling back the war on drugs. But it's been all talk," Tom Angell, spokesman for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said. "Drug Czar Kerlikowske, in his very first interview with the Wall Street Journal after taking office, declared the end of the 'war on drugs' terminology. He has repeatedly said that this is a health and not just a crime issue. But the problem is: the drug control budget still overwhelmingly devotes more resources to old, failed punishment strategies than effective treatment and prevention strategies. The rhetoric doesn't match the reality."

Federal legislation does not diminish the King's role in directing or not directing his departments to enforce such, much the same as police departments effectively do not enforce small possession laws at houses, or enforce jaywalking. You really have no idea what you're talking about here, and you've completely went off in left field when responding to me.

Edited by zaibatsu, 20 January 2013 - 06:51 PM.

  • 0

#7 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 20 January 2013 - 10:55 PM

<p>

The farm industry is unwilling to take the risk because King Obama won't want to abandon his archaic executive authority over the ridiculous war on drugs.

It was King Dick Nixon that started the whole "Drug War" thing. Why can't GOP presidential candidates who advocate for legalization, like Pat Robertson, or Ron Paul make it out of the gate to the general election?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.