If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Farmers' pesticides and water diversions ruining rural Northern California forest ecosystem and poisoning wildlife. Oh wait, it's pot farmers -- HOW DARE SCIENTISTS MAKE THIS STUFF UP AND SLANDER OUR HOLY, HARMLESS PLANT   (latimes.com) divider line 114
    More: Interesting, water diversion, forest ecosystem, Department of Fish, growers, pesticides, Humboldt counties, wildlife  
•       •       •

4874 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Dec 2012 at 5:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-23 03:57:11 PM
I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-12-23 04:11:11 PM
I was just commenting in another thread that "free market" is distinct from "black market" and "anarchy." Here we have a similar problem. It's not feasible to impose health and safety regulations on an underground economy.
 
2012-12-23 04:14:02 PM

ZAZ: I was just commenting in another thread that "free market" is distinct from "black market" and "anarchy." Here we have a similar problem. It's not feasible to impose health and safety regulations on an underground economy.


Yeah, if I've got an illegal pot farm, I'm probably not inclined to let Dept. of Agriculture inspectors come have a look-see.  Just guessing.
 
2012-12-23 04:40:45 PM
If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though
 
2012-12-23 05:23:50 PM
This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.
 
2012-12-23 05:25:19 PM
So smoke meth?
 
2012-12-23 05:25:29 PM
Dude... I thought it was organic.

hightimes.com

pass the chips.
 
2012-12-23 05:25:58 PM

ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?


u make it sound like it's one or the other. but you tend to smoke weed as you come down from meth
 
2012-12-23 05:30:32 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though



I've been reassured by Republicans that clear-cutting just simulates a natural process, and is good for the forest.

I never hear any specifics to explain how the hell that's supposed to be true, of course.
 
2012-12-23 05:30:37 PM
Some people are quite concerned about inhaling pesticide residue. Personally, I find inhaling smoke particles on purpose pretty illogical but I can understand the concern of old hippies.
 
2012-12-23 05:30:47 PM
Lol, messicans.
 
2012-12-23 05:30:48 PM

jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.


This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.
 
2012-12-23 05:31:01 PM
If it's cool for every other crop farmer to do it why should the rules be any different?

Seriously though, farmers are coddled to a ridiculous degree. Quit flooding everything with pigsh*t and pesticides and holding food prices hostage.

Oh... and all that "extra" food that gets destroyed to inflate prices? Give it to the f*cking hungry you selfish jackals.
 
2012-12-23 05:32:08 PM

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.


Those illegal growers have guns too. Lots of guns.

/troll headline, troll post.
 
2012-12-23 05:32:26 PM
Remember paraquat?

Good times.
 
2012-12-23 05:35:18 PM
Potheads dont care about environmental destruction. They just want to get stoned. No matter the cost to everyone else.
 
2012-12-23 05:37:42 PM
Because society would never unfairly malign pot, right, subby?
 
2012-12-23 05:38:37 PM

ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?


25.media.tumblr.com

Why smoke that crap? It's 40 bucks for a 30 days supply. Just say you're having trouble concentrating to a family physician.

dryknife: Remember paraquat? Good times.


Good news. At temperatures that pot ignites, Paraquat turns into relatively non-toxic pyridine bases.
 
2012-12-23 05:39:10 PM

Gyrfalcon: jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.

This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.


And unless you hunt and gather, you rely on these farms to feed you.

There are sustainable ways of doing it.
 
2012-12-23 05:40:35 PM

Rug Doctor: Because society would never unfairly malign pot, right, subby?


The problem comes in when you can no longer differentiate legitimate research regarding short and long-term side effects of pot use in it's various forms, with FUD used by the DARE and DFA to scare people.
 
2012-12-23 05:43:02 PM

Gyrfalcon: jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.

This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.


This is a harmful over-generalization, farming does not have to be unsustainable. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee
 
2012-12-23 05:46:21 PM
I wonder if derpmitter knows how many times illegal cannabis kept northern cali our of recession/depression?
 
2012-12-23 05:48:06 PM

kmmontandon: MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though


I've been reassured by Republicans that clear-cutting just simulates a natural process, and is good for the forest.

I never hear any specifics to explain how the hell that's supposed to be true, of course.


Forest fires are supposed to naturally clear out the forest periodically and reset the ecosystem so that new growth gets a chance to get started. By putting out forest fires, we humans have actually farked up that natural cycle of destruction and renewal, so clear cutting actually returns things to the status quo if it is done responsibly, which of course is a huge if.
 
2012-12-23 05:51:21 PM
This article isn't necessarily wrong, as I can't speak for the past or present of California, but it's not like folks growing in the forests is anything new. The Mexican cartels have long been infamous for using the parks and forests for their grows, and guerilla growing was the norm rather than the exception for many, many years. Humboldt and the triangle aren't historically famous for indoor farms. Up until the MMJ laws passed in Oregon, the forests were FULL of weed growers, and the MMJ laws did the exact opposite of what this article implies, as the large outdoor grows became several small outdoor grows. Most of the large-scale production I hear about in California and Colorado now is taking place in legal warehouses, because anybody who actually knows what they're doing wants as much control/security over the process as possible , and they want their grow to adhere to legal standards. I don't doubt that illegal, squatting outdoor farmers aren't the most conscientious folks in the world, and I imagine the dispensary scene in CA has increased demand somewhat, or at least made it easier for the average dipshiat to sell a boat-load of weed, but I'd also actually be surprised to learn that outdoor cultivation has increased over the years.
 
2012-12-23 05:51:27 PM
Legalize it, let them grow in their backyards, window boxes, and farm fields, and maybe they'll come down out of the forest,

Let Sustainable Cannabis and Hemp Production be taught at the community colleges, and show them how to do it correctly.

Problem solved?
 
2012-12-23 06:01:02 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?

u make it sound like it's one or the other. but you tend to smoke weed as you come down from meth



So... don't come down?
 
2012-12-23 06:05:10 PM
Back in the 1920's and 30's, moonshine stills littered the hills and backwoods of much of the country.

Not much of a problem these days.

Wonder why?
 
2012-12-23 06:09:04 PM

Amos Quito: Jon iz teh kewl: ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?

u make it sound like it's one or the other. but you tend to smoke weed as you come down from meth


So... don't come down?


What goes up must come down. Because gravity.
 
2012-12-23 06:09:33 PM
Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.
 
2012-12-23 06:09:40 PM
Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it  is beyond  me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.


So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and  I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of  surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors  go to work  the harvest. Why wouldn't  they  work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey!  Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner
//also not a surfer
///you'd have to check  with my sis for  that stuff
 
2012-12-23 06:10:26 PM
There is nothing that can improve the taste of salmon just let them die.
 
2012-12-23 06:11:49 PM

rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.


What do you have against deliciousness, you monster.

delianytime.com
 
2012-12-23 06:14:40 PM

rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.


wat
 
2012-12-23 06:17:33 PM
This headline demonstrates the thought process of a retarded liberal quite clearly.
 
2012-12-23 06:18:10 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it  is beyond  me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.

So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and  I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of  surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors  go to work  the harvest. Why wouldn't  they  work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey!  Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner
//also not a surfer
///you'd have to check  with my sis for  that stuff


Link?
 
2012-12-23 06:18:35 PM
see the issue here isnt the fact that people are growing marijuana its the lengths they have to go to grow it, if it was legal we wouldnt be having this problem people would have warehouses and greenhouses outdoor growing would become pretty well obselete
 
2012-12-23 06:19:07 PM
Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.
 
2012-12-23 06:19:31 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-23 06:20:50 PM

Mutt Farkinov: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Hell, we've known about this problem for years. Why the LA Times is running yet another article on it  is beyond  me. Must not have been any particularly interesting shootings or stabbings or gang turf wars lately.

sammyk: I'm pretty sure stoners have a big problem with the illegal grows too subby. In fact legalizing would fix this farked up problem overnight.

So much this. I used to live in SoCal, now in NorCal, and  I know plenty of stoners. We are the land of fruits and nuts, but also the land of  surfers and pot smokers. It irritates the more financially blessed or stable stoners to no end when those uppity poors  go to work  the harvest. Why wouldn't  they  work the harvest? They can make more money in less than one month than they did the previous three or four by working the harvest. Oh, and hey!  Smoke every night, free! They consider the poors part of a major problem with our ecosystem. "Well, then so are you, because you're buying it." They don't like me pointing that out and it usually ends with them having a snit fit about the government.

/not a stoner
//also not a surfer
///you'd have to check  with my sis for  that stuff

Link?


Sorry, dude. She's computer illiterate. I'm  just now teaching her how to use my laptop so I have an excuse to buy a new one, and it is going poorly. I think she should stick to surfing.
 
2012-12-23 06:23:41 PM

WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat


As in farking the chicken, I do believe.
 
2012-12-23 06:27:30 PM
Greened troll is greened.
 
2012-12-23 06:30:07 PM

Antagonism: Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.


So...legalization is good because growers could be legitimate, non-criminals no longer at constant risk of being busted...

OR

Nonlegalization is good because I make good money and Walmart brand "Great Value" weed will put me out of business.
 
2012-12-23 06:34:15 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.



Wat wat
 
2012-12-23 06:35:57 PM

guises: Gyrfalcon: jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.

This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.

This is a harmful over-generalization, farming does not have to be unsustainable. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shade-grown_coffee


[shrug] Farming is bad for the environment. Period. It doesn't matter how "sustainable" it is. Planting one crop, that is, putting more of one type of plant in an area to the exclusion of other plants that would normally be in the area is environmentally unsound. It's possible to MINIMIZE the damage, to MINIMIZE the harm done by fertilizing, irrigating, etc., but the simple fact is that settling down in one area and emphasizing one or two sorts of crop and removing other types of plants ("weeds"), allowing certain animals and disallowing other animals ("pests" or "vermin") is ecologically unsound.

It can be done in such a way as to keep the impact smaller; but it's going to have an impact. Sorry if you don't like the implications, but your shade-grown coffee still means that there are too many coffee plants in the region which don't belong there. And are those coffee plants even native to the region?
 
2012-12-23 06:38:56 PM
Potheads don't really 'hate' the environment

...they're just really confused by it
 
2012-12-23 06:41:32 PM

shanrick: [i.imgur.com image 200x160


Are those as odor-free as they claim?
 
2012-12-23 06:50:53 PM

Mutt Farkinov: Antagonism: Just another reason to legalize. The CA initiative to legalize a few years ago was thwarted thanks in part to the fear-mongering spread by the growers in the Emerald Triangle. These guys have absolutely no desire to see legalization because of how much money is pumped into their homes. These are the same people who aren't regulated, have no safety standards, are likely to be violent to protect their crop, and have absolutely no incentive to give a shiat about their environmental impact.

So...legalization is good because growers could be legitimate, non-criminals no longer at constant risk of being busted...

OR

Nonlegalization is good because I make good money and Walmart brand "Great Value" weed will put me out of business.


The growers I know (up in Mendocino) aren't actually concerned with being busted, but they are afraid of being robbed. They own weapons and will shoot to kill to protect their crops. I'm speaking about CA, YMMV in different states. But, yes, they do hate the idea of Great Value weed. That is one of the (many) arguments that they spread during the '10 campaigns to try to sway opinion against prop 19, that weed would be ruined because big companies would take it over and turn it into Phillip Morris.

Sucks for them, but I'd rather have a sane, legal situation, tax them, and regulate them so they don't do the kind of shiat that is mentioned in the article. And yes, it would reduce the number of criminals we have in society by a large amount the day it goes legal.
 
2012-12-23 07:00:14 PM
Ha ha instant gratification farks you too.

/no good deed goes unpunished, hippies.
//Just teasing, if anyone can figure out how to fix this fast it's you guys
////Please hurry! Im down to my last jar
i26.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-23 07:05:35 PM
Pot is really dangerous. Haven't you heard about all those dope dealers shooting each other over it? Think how many more of these killings we would have if it was legal!
 
2012-12-23 07:06:01 PM
Hey subby, if they could grow it out in the open like any other plant, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2012-12-23 07:06:15 PM
I assume most of the posts in this thread are angry stoners telling OP that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem.
 
2012-12-23 07:21:38 PM
uh... i've seen people murdered with carbofuran / furadan - :( -

how the hell is this a drug of 'peace and love' with the havoc these growers are doing ? ! ? ! - - whatever happens to garlic sprays on indoor grows ?
 
2012-12-23 07:22:35 PM
now thats what I call winning the drug war. force a blackmarket, let inexperinced cartels and newbies tear up the land to get this product to market. then the gov. and head up their butts people can say "look how dangerous pot can be". what a day.
 
2012-12-23 07:25:24 PM

jeblis: I assume most of the posts in this thread are angry stoners telling OP that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem.


I'm an angry non-stoner telling subs that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem. Not only for our ecosystem, but if  you go hiking in  a  national forest you would  no longer have to worry about being shot at for getting  too close to a grow.
 
2012-12-23 07:29:59 PM

BronyMedic: ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x423]

Why smoke that crap? It's 40 bucks for a 30 days supply. Just say you're having trouble concentrating to a family physician.

there's less than 1,000 scripts for that nationwide. - - it's really really controlled. :(

 
2012-12-23 07:31:25 PM
Hey, if we grew hemp everywhere and let it grow wild then it would ruin all these outdoor crops and the cartels would have to figure something else out. But we can't do that. Because reasons.
 
2012-12-23 07:32:32 PM
The simple solution to this problem is to grow inside. Of course you have to pay for the electricity but you don't use any pesticides,etc.It's as "organic" as you'll find. No seeds, usually MUCH better quality. Why bother growing, working on something substandard? All it takes is the nuts to live with your work and not go "check" on it once in a while.
 
2012-12-23 07:35:48 PM
Maybe like we should just let the stoners and the tree huggers duke it out, dude
 
2012-12-23 07:38:18 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: jeblis: I assume most of the posts in this thread are angry stoners telling OP that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm an angry non-stoner telling subs that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem. Not only for our ecosystem, but if  you go hiking in  a  national forest you would  no longer have to worry about being shot at for getting  too close to a grow.


OP was making fun of angry stoners, not the validity of their arguments.
 
2012-12-23 07:39:28 PM
BTW Desoxin is a killer upper. You really don't want to start with that. You end up running with your high beams on all the time. You feel 9' tall and bullet proof. AND your stuff won't stand up even with Niagra spray starch. Bad stuff, stay away.
 
2012-12-23 07:40:17 PM

jeblis: Real Women Drink Akvavit: jeblis: I assume most of the posts in this thread are angry stoners telling OP that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm an angry non-stoner telling subs that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem. Not only for our ecosystem, but if  you go hiking in  a  national forest you would  no longer have to worry about being shot at for getting  too close to a grow.

OP was making fun of angry stoners, not the validity of their arguments.


That's what I was hoping for, and that's what I figured. Thanks for the confirmation of my suspicions.
 
2012-12-23 07:43:35 PM

Onkel Buck: Ha ha instant gratification farks you too.

/no good deed goes unpunished, hippies.
//Just teasing, if anyone can figure out how to fix this fast it's you guys
////Please hurry! Im down to my last jar
[i26.photobucket.com image 320x240]


Heavens to Betsy! However will you manage?

This post brought to you by the deadly sin of "envy".
 
2012-12-23 07:45:46 PM

Urbanfarmr: BTW Desoxin is a killer upper. You really don't want to start with that. You end up running with your high beams on all the time. You feel 9' tall and bullet proof. AND your stuff won't stand up even with Niagra spray starch. Bad stuff, stay away.


oh plz i sprinkle that shiat on my salad
 
2012-12-23 07:54:40 PM

Real Women Drink Akvavit: jeblis: I assume most of the posts in this thread are angry stoners telling OP that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm an angry non-stoner telling subs that if it was legal this wouldn't be a problem. Not only for our ecosystem, but if  you go hiking in  a  national forest you would  no longer have to worry about being shot at for getting  too close to a grow.



I'm also a non-stoner who sees very clearly that prohibition has failed and causes FAR more real harm to society than legalization will
 
2012-12-23 08:12:50 PM
So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?
 
2012-12-23 08:14:04 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?


probably slim to nil

now coca, probably not either, due to the fact they only will grow in South America
 
2012-12-23 08:17:15 PM

Gyrfalcon: Farming is bad for the environment. Period. It doesn't matter how "sustainable" it is. Planting one crop, that is, putting more of one type of plant in an area to the exclusion of other plants that would normally be in the area is environmentally unsound. It's possible to MINIMIZE the damage, to MINIMIZE the harm done by fertilizing, irrigating, etc., but the simple fact is that settling down in one area and emphasizing one or two sorts of crop and removing other types of plants ("weeds"), allowing certain animals and disallowing other animals ("pests" or "vermin") is ecologically unsound.

It can be done in such a way as to keep the impact smaller; but it's going to have an impact.


Aren't you just special.
 
2012-12-23 08:20:12 PM
Illegal grows are illegal.
I like my weed grown indoors, in dirt, sans pesticides, fertilized with guano.. and that's how I get it.

/ colorado
 
2012-12-23 08:24:34 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?

probably slim to nil

now coca, probably not either, due to the fact they only will grow in South America


Better chance of opium poppies.
 
2012-12-23 08:26:09 PM

utah dude: there's less than 1,000 scripts for that nationwide. - - it's really really controlled. :(


Well, it also has to do with the fact there are safer and less addictive formulations out there. Vyvance is the one I take.
 
2012-12-23 08:29:33 PM

FunkOut: Jon iz teh kewl: Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?

probably slim to nil

now coca, probably not either, due to the fact they only will grow in South America

Better chance of opium poppies.


So, we'd be looking at a bunch of doped-out morphine addicts instead of cheeto-crazed, laughing hippies?
 
2012-12-23 08:33:03 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: So, we'd be looking at a bunch of doped-out morphine addicts instead of cheeto-crazed, laughing hippies?


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-23 08:49:12 PM
You know, I've been kicking around this rock for a bit and so far, all I've managed to discern is that the best we can do for running things is a bunch of motherf*ckers carrying signs that say "NO, OUR SIDE!" and a lot of people riding their backs by putting IOUs on a stick in front of them. And they only thing they have in common is they want to wipe their ass with the earth for THEIR cause. It's sort of pathetic.
 
2012-12-23 08:52:37 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?

probably slim to nil

now coca, probably not either, due to the fact they only will grow in South America



Global Warming, dude.
 
2012-12-23 08:54:02 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?


It's not illegal to grow cocao anywhere.
 
2012-12-23 08:57:19 PM

OregonVet: Gyrfalcon: Farming is bad for the environment. Period. It doesn't matter how "sustainable" it is. Planting one crop, that is, putting more of one type of plant in an area to the exclusion of other plants that would normally be in the area is environmentally unsound. It's possible to MINIMIZE the damage, to MINIMIZE the harm done by fertilizing, irrigating, etc., but the simple fact is that settling down in one area and emphasizing one or two sorts of crop and removing other types of plants ("weeds"), allowing certain animals and disallowing other animals ("pests" or "vermin") is ecologically unsound.

It can be done in such a way as to keep the impact smaller; but it's going to have an impact.

Aren't you just special.


Aren't you retarded.
 
2012-12-23 08:57:24 PM

WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.


Wat wat


I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.
 
2012-12-23 09:01:00 PM

jso2897: Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?

It's not illegal to grow cocao anywhere.


Sorry, I was, as John is teh kewl is referring, to the plant that cocaine is produced from. I suspect that something would fill the void at illegal grow sites if mj were to become legalized. As someone pointed out earlier, maybe opium/poppy plants?
 
2012-12-23 09:10:37 PM

Dr Jack Badofsky: jso2897: Dr Jack Badofsky: So, if pot became legalized, what are the chances that cocoa plants might take the places of pot plants in illegal grow locations?

It's not illegal to grow cocao anywhere.

Sorry, I was, as John is teh kewl is referring, to the plant that cocaine is produced from. I suspect that something would fill the void at illegal grow sites if mj were to become legalized. As someone pointed out earlier, maybe opium/poppy plants?


It is my understanding that those need full sunlight, which is why the Afghani producers grow them in open fields. I think that would stick out a bit too much, even in California.
 
2012-12-23 09:15:07 PM

OregonVet: Gyrfalcon: Farming is bad for the environment. Period. It doesn't matter how "sustainable" it is. Planting one crop, that is, putting more of one type of plant in an area to the exclusion of other plants that would normally be in the area is environmentally unsound. It's possible to MINIMIZE the damage, to MINIMIZE the harm done by fertilizing, irrigating, etc., but the simple fact is that settling down in one area and emphasizing one or two sorts of crop and removing other types of plants ("weeds"), allowing certain animals and disallowing other animals ("pests" or "vermin") is ecologically unsound.

It can be done in such a way as to keep the impact smaller; but it's going to have an impact.

Aren't you just special.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-23 09:16:37 PM
while we ignore the rest of the country's decimated aquifers due to all sorts of non-mary jane chemical applications.
 
2012-12-23 09:18:48 PM

rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.

Wat wat

I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-23 09:36:05 PM

rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.


Wat wat

I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.


What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own homes? You may not want to do it yourself, but don't try to impose your morality on them, you conservative derptard.
 
2012-12-23 09:47:14 PM
+1 subby as far as I am concerned.

I have been on the receiving end of more than one lecture from my Humboldt county kinfolk about how reactionary and unsubstainable my middle class lifestyle is. TFA confirms what I suspected all along--they're all a bunch of hypocrites.
 
2012-12-23 09:48:23 PM
about-tera.com
 
2012-12-23 09:52:24 PM

BronyMedic: rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.


Wat wat

I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.

What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own homes? You may not want to do it yourself, but don't try to impose your morality on them, you conservative derptard.



Chickens do not "own homes". They are there at the pleasure of the landlords.
 
2012-12-23 10:00:00 PM

MagicMissile: This headline demonstrates the thought process of a retarded liberal quite clearly.


I bet the source of every ill in your life is a result of the Great Liberal Conspiracy/Agenda. Do you peek under your bed before going to sleep to make sure Obama isn't hiding under there?
 
2012-12-23 10:00:22 PM

Amos Quito: BronyMedic: rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.
wat
As in farking the chicken, I do believe.
Wat wat
I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.
What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own homes? You may not want to do it yourself, but don't try to impose your morality on them, you conservative derptard.

Chickens do not "own homes". They are there at the pleasure of the landlords.



Coops. Chickens live in coops. He missed the chance to say "What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own coops?" which would have been the funnier joke.

/because there's no privacy in a chicken coop
 
2012-12-23 10:13:28 PM
And your iPhone (apple is great) took more toxic shiat (apple is so progressive) to make than Chernobyl (Steve Jobs was the fifth Beatle) ever threw up.
 
2012-12-23 10:31:18 PM

KrispyKritter: while we ignore the rest of the country's decimated aquifers due to all sorts of non-mary jane chemical applications.


Yes, I often yell at the clouds! Why won't you produce that precious fluid?
 
2012-12-23 10:36:04 PM

detroitdoesntsuckthatbad: KrispyKritter: while we ignore the rest of the country's decimated aquifers due to all sorts of non-mary jane chemical applications.

Yes, I often yell at the clouds! Why won't you produce that precious fluid?


If the government wasn't so farking stingy with grant money, I might be able to solve the "Booze from rain clouds" problem
 
2012-12-23 10:54:57 PM
Let's tell the truth this is a picture of an illegal alien grow, they also will take "pot" shots at you when hiking if you get too close. It has gotten so bad that rangers are warning people.
 
2012-12-23 11:03:18 PM
This is a federal problem not my problem at all.  If you make it legal and regulate it you make money from fines and taxes.  Right now you just spend taxes on it.
 
2012-12-23 11:08:02 PM

WeenerGord: rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.

Wat wat

I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.

[i.imgur.com image 533x800]


Don't get my mom's family involved. Not relevant.
 
2012-12-23 11:12:58 PM

rev. dave: WeenerGord: rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.
wat
As in farking the chicken, I do believe.
Wat wat
I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.
[i.imgur.com image 533x800]

Don't get my mom's family involved. Not relevant.



Yeah, right, like ur mom's not already involved.
 
2012-12-23 11:33:17 PM

WeenerGord: Amos Quito: BronyMedic: rev. dave: WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.
wat
As in farking the chicken, I do believe.
Wat wat
I can't leave the "speaking in code" to just the conservatives.
YES THE CHICKEN WILL NOT fark ITSELF. So we have LEOs and laws against the pot. Lots of property not yet seized and people not imprisoned.
What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own homes? You may not want to do it yourself, but don't try to impose your morality on them, you conservative derptard.

Chickens do not "own homes". They are there at the pleasure of the landlords.


Coops. Chickens live in coops. He missed the chance to say "What do you have against chickens masturbating in the privacy of their own coops?" which would have been the funnier joke.

/because there's no privacy in a chicken coop



Are you experienced at this sort of thing?
 
2012-12-23 11:51:13 PM

WeenerGord: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: WeenerGord: rev. dave: Local police everywhere still state a preference in certain breeds of chicken. They will not let go until the body is cold.

wat

As in farking the chicken, I do believe.


Wat wat


In the butt butt cloacca?

/Sorry
 
2012-12-24 12:02:31 AM

Morgellons: In the butt butt cloacca?


Amos Quito: /because there's no privacy in a chicken coop

Are you eggsperienced at this sort of thing?



Is this wat wat you two dirty birds are looking for?

i.cdn.turner.com

/Bet you don't even go to church
 
2012-12-24 12:32:07 AM

MagicMissile: This headline demonstrates the thought process of a retarded liberal quite clearly.


Wow. And I was just going to post pot is for stupid people, but damn .... excellent
 
2012-12-24 01:20:40 AM

BronyMedic: ModernLuddite: So smoke meth?

[25.media.tumblr.com image 500x423]

Why smoke that crap? It's 40 bucks for a 30 days supply. Just say you're having trouble concentrating to a family physician.

dryknife: Remember paraquat? Good times.

Good news. At temperatures that pot ignites, Paraquat turns into relatively non-toxic pyridine bases.


We never stock/carry Desoxyn, it's always the analogues- Adderall was like $1 a pill before last year's shortage, but ever since our prices have almost tripled for the IR dosing, but if you have a PBM with your insurance plan there's a sick copay card from the manufacturer that can land you a $0 copay for a year on Vyvanse.
 
2012-12-24 01:46:12 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though


you notice how it's not all straight bare? it's plots, and there is almost a pattern to them?

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S MANAGED PRODUCTION LAND YOU MORON.

/know something about modern forestry before you open your mouth
//and learn what national forests are
///clear cutting and replanting a single plot != clearing an entire forest and leaving it barren
 
2012-12-24 01:47:29 AM

Gyrfalcon: jflan17: This is not a problem inherent to marijuana. It could be virtually any other crop and we'd see similar results.

This.

Farming is really bad for the environment. I don't care how nifty and organic your plants are.


"organic" farming is actually a massive gimic that is worse than most 'modern farming' for the environment (due to the lower production and higher lossage per acre)
 
2012-12-24 01:54:58 AM

Kazan: MaudlinMutantMollusk: If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though

you notice how it's not all straight bare? it's plots, and there is almost a pattern to them?

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S MANAGED PRODUCTION LAND YOU MORON.

/know something about modern forestry before you open your mouth
//and learn what national forests are
///clear cutting and replanting a single plot != clearing an entire forest and leaving it barren


furthermore.. zoom in. you'll notice plots in various stages of the production lifecycle.

as an environmentalist who thinks first, discusses policy second, and has realistic expectations it really pisses me off when people make fools of environmentalism like you did.
 
2012-12-24 02:01:48 AM
Yes, and this is exactly why I wish the feds would butt the fark out and let us legalize it completely so that we can regulate it. Not only will it decrease environmental damage, it will decrease violence from the cartels shooting people who wander to close to their crop (or each other), defund the cartels, hopefully give more jobs to people who aren't cartel members. And your pot is less likely to be full of pesticides.

Keeping pot illegal is doing NOTHING positive. You can't list one single positive thing that keeping pot illegal does, unless you think keeping prison profits up is a good thing.

It's not just about giving up the stupid puritanical idea that we should punish people who enjoy themselves, it's also about being practical. People can look back and see how stupid the prohibition of alcohol was, I have no idea why the feds can't get their heads out of their asses about pot. This country has enough shiatty problems to deal with without us giving ourselves extra unnecessary ones.
 
2012-12-24 02:10:51 AM

jake_lex: ZAZ: I was just commenting in another thread that "free market" is distinct from "black market" and "anarchy." Here we have a similar problem. It's not feasible to impose health and safety regulations on an underground economy.

Yeah, if I've got an illegal pot farm, I'm probably not inclined to let Dept. of Agriculture inspectors come have a look-see.  Just guessing.


And I'd use whatever products got the desired yield the fastest.
 
2012-12-24 04:20:25 AM
Wyckyd Sceptre:
shanrick: [i.imgur.com image 200x160

Are those as odor-free as they claim?"

Yes.

/not a smoker, but that one's pretty useful. And cute. Charger only lasts a few bowls tho.
 
2012-12-24 04:28:21 AM
Kazan: MaudlinMutantMollusk: "If you go to Google Earth, and find Georgetown, CA, then pan East, you'll see forest destruction like you've never imagined

/it's called 'clear cutting', and there are miles and miles of nothing but bare dirt left
//I'm sure it's not an erosion problem, though

you notice how it's not all straight bare? it's plots, and there is almost a pattern to them?

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S MANAGED PRODUCTION LAND YOU MORON.

/know something about modern forestry before you open your mouth
//and learn what national forests are
///clear cutting and replanting a single plot != clearing an entire forest and leaving it barren

furthermore.. zoom in. you'll notice plots in various stages of the production lifecycle.

as an environmentalist who thinks first, discusses policy second, and has realistic expectations it really pisses me off when people make fools of environmentalism like you did."

To be fair, there are plenty of so-called environmentalists that give the movement a bad name. Maudlin's comment was relatively benign. Noticing something and mentioning it does not require expertise in the subject. No need to flip out.
 
2012-12-24 08:57:05 AM
U mad, subby?

I laughed when I read "responsible grower." Yes, Monsanto, Round Up, patents.

Responsible.
 
2012-12-24 11:01:23 AM

o'really:
you notice how it's not all straight bare? it's plots, and there is almost a pattern to them?

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S MANAGED PRODUCTION LAND YOU MORON.

/know something about modern forestry before you open your mouth
//and learn what national forests are
///clear cutting and replanting a single plot != clearing an entire forest and leaving it barren



No, but it's almost as damaging, especially considering herbicides that are dumped in, the short-term erosion that results, and the mono-species replants that aren't actually forests, but tree farms.
 
2012-12-24 11:04:38 AM

Kazan:
you notice how it's not all straight bare? it's plots, and there is almost a pattern to them?

THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS. IT'S MANAGED PRODUCTION LAND YOU MORON.

/know something about modern forestry before you open your mouth
//and learn what national forests are
///clear cutting and replanting a single plot != clearing an entire forest and leaving it barren



OK, this is the person I meant to respond to. Someone dropped a tag somewhere.

And Sierra Pacific doesn't do anything responsibly. Also, clear-cuts do not in the least simulate natural wild-fires, which tend to leave older, sturdier Ponderosa, Red Fir, and Doug Fir (commercial wood) intact, while clearing out the underbrush, deadwood, snags, diseased and weakened trees, etc.
 
2012-12-24 11:26:03 AM
You mean an unregulated industry is causing harm to the general public? Rick Romero reporting...
 
2012-12-24 11:35:49 AM

kmmontandon: And Sierra Pacific doesn't do anything responsibly. Also, clear-cuts do not in the least simulate natural wild-fires, which tend to leave older, sturdier Ponderosa, Red Fir, and Doug Fir (commercial wood) intact, while clearing out the underbrush, deadwood, snags, diseased and weakened trees, etc.


who said anything about Sierra Pacific? that is designated national forest he was biatching about. the Forest Service _DOES_ do things reasonably responsibly. Yes when they harvest they cut out a plot - however those plots are intentionally fairly small and the wildlife has the neighboring plots to go to and have minimal disruption.

do you know nothing about modern forestry?


/and yes i know how real fires act
//they're actually doing fire-simulated harvesting in replanted sequoia and redwood groves - thinning cuts instead of clear cuts
///plus modern clear cuts leave trees lining sensitive things like streams, etc.
 
2012-12-24 11:48:21 AM

Kazan: kmmontandon: And Sierra Pacific doesn't do anything responsibly. Also, clear-cuts do not in the least simulate natural wild-fires, which tend to leave older, sturdier Ponderosa, Red Fir, and Doug Fir (commercial wood) intact, while clearing out the underbrush, deadwood, snags, diseased and weakened trees, etc.

who said anything about Sierra Pacific? that is designated national forest he was biatching about. the Forest Service _DOES_ do things reasonably responsibly. Yes when they harvest they cut out a plot - however those plots are intentionally fairly small and the wildlife has the neighboring plots to go to and have minimal disruption.

do you know nothing about modern forestry?


Yes ... yes I do.

I was pointing out that clear-cutting is f*cked up, no matter how you slice it. Forest Service management of National Forests is a different situation altogether, and one that I deal with on a very regular basis. The problem is that commercial logging land is intermixed, boundary-wise, with NF. Commercial clear-cuts can, and do, have a negative impact on neighboring nation forests.

/and yes i know how real fires act
//they're actually doing fire-simulated harvesting in replanted sequoia and redwood groves - thinning cuts instead of clear cuts
///plus modern clear cuts leave trees lining sensitive things like streams, etc.


Modern clear-cuts are only slightly less f*cked up than traditional ones. I can see a few out my window (just as I could see multiple forest fires out my window this past summer) - the fact that they have a legal boundary between the logging and the nearest watershed barely ameliorates the practice. The heavy herbicide dumpings, the short-term erosion leading to silt in streams and lakes, the entire destruction of square miles of ecosystem (SPI frequently does 1 mile x 1 mile cuts), which is then replaced by a sterile replant of row after row of Doug Fir ... yeah, there's no real defending that from anything other than a profit motive. And it sure as hell doesn't simulate a fire.
 
2012-12-24 12:12:37 PM

kmmontandon: Modern clear-cuts are only slightly less f*cked up than traditional ones. I can see a few out my window (just as I could see multiple forest fires out my window this past summer) - the fact that they have a legal boundary between the logging and the nearest watershed barely ameliorates the practice. The heavy herbicide dumpings, the short-term erosion leading to silt in streams and lakes, the entire destruction of square miles of ecosystem (SPI frequently does 1 mile x 1 mile cuts), which is then replaced by a sterile replant of row after row of Doug Fir ... yeah, there's no real defending that from anything other than a profit motive. And it sure as hell doesn't simulate a fire.


i'm sure there are a few things more that could be improved but we need to be freaking realists here. it is not feasable to leave everything pristine and untouched. We needed both John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. sure a clear cluit plot is ugly, but they replant. do you know what harvested production forest does that natural forest doesn't? sequester carbon.

Modern man can never make his impact on the land zero, and expecting to be able to do so and maintain lives is completely unrealistic. We can only set aside areas to be left untouched and enjoyed (hiking trails, etc). We must also do our best to responsibly manage the production land.
 
Displayed 114 of 114 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report