Archive for the ‘Weed’ Category
Another police tool.
Last week it was license plate scanner – a necessary police tool to track and document who you are, where you live, work, shop and play. Today it’s “Irrigation crackdown” in the Times-Standard. Another necessary police tool in the form of the law AB 2284 by Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata on the governor’s desk for signing. Chesbro says, according to Megan Hansen, “this legislation gives law enforcement new tools to protect public resource lands and private industrial timberland from harmful environmental practices. He defines the “practices” as “drug operations.” The “tool,” he says is, law enforcement (peace officers = Megan Hansen) would have to power to stop and question people transporting visible irrigation supplies through unpaved or gravel roads.
“Transporting visible irrigation supplies” sounds innocuous enough, doesn’t it? Would that be “supplies” on a big truck or in the back of pickup? What’s next fertilizers, building materials? Maybe it’s permanent security check points at county lines or better yet one between Eureka and Fortuna, at Bridgeville, Garberville, Trinidad – you name it.
It’s always the same thing with Knee-Jerkers. There’s always some overriding need to supplant, ignore or parse long established law.
I’m not sure Eric Kirk rises to the status of an “Elite.” As a younger person than I, recollecting upon previous statements of his, he came into the heart of the Emerald Triangle in its heyday. He’s worked in Southern Humboldt, supporting that community as a businessman and a lawyer. That community, with rare exception embraced the counterfeit prosperity brought in by a sub-culture of outlaw marijuana growers, sellers and exporters. While to local business people postured over the lawlessness of these criminals, they were certainly not loath to look the other way as they raked in all those cash dollars. The consequences are over 50 years of generational corruption, moral and ethical debasement.
This writer’s post, while certainly hilarious on it’s face, certainly, to those of us that have remained unstained by the stench of this feces, is without any doubt“Morally Repugnant”:
Someone dumped a bunch of spent marijuana grow soil into the Arcata Bottoms, disturbing a very vulnerable habitat. The Arcata Eye has the photos.We know nothing about the people who did the dumping, and I know there are much worse transgressions than this – but what is clear is that there is a certain nihilist element in the growing community which becomes evident with each headline. This incident visually symbolizes what appears to be a decline of ethics and increase in self-centered disregard for community in an industry which is broadly trying to become legit. This is what leads public figures to rail about “unholy alliances” and will certainly contribute to a very definitive backlash.
Maybe some values are simply not surviving from one generation to the next? [Emphasis added]
Giving Growers a BAD name? Did you read the comments? You’ve got to read the comments. Here’s how they start with one classic apologist’s comment:
“First generation growers” “who moved here for the money”? I wonder where she got that idea. I was there at that time and I can tell you “they” – most “they(s)” – didn’t move here for the money or “the lifestyle.” They were just trying to survive the only way they knew how. “Lifestyle” – That’s her romantic fantasy.
Hilarious, no? A symbol of “decline of ethics and increase in self-centered disregard for community“? You’ve got to be kidding me! What “community” is he talking about? I’d like to know what kind of “ethics” and “values” he’s talking about. Only a “self-centered nihilist” lawyer “elitist” would ever look at the corruption caused by the “unholy alliances” between the amoral business “community” and the morally corrupt pot grower and fifty years later ask if someone’s dumping “a bunch of spent marijuana grow soil into the Arcata Bottoms” is a “decline in social – community norms. In my book, that is a classic example of a “Morally Repugnant Elitist” as you can find anywhere.
PS. If you’d like to know a little more about an MRE I suggest you read the following blog: Warmongers and the MRE blow.
Joe has had some interesting conversations this past week about the detrimental consequences to the North Coast social structure caused by decades of lawless profiting by everyone and their brother cashing in on the marijuana “trade.” None of these people ever gave one damn about themselves, living legal, what they were doing to their communities or what they were teaching their children. Now, all they can talk about is getting pot-growing legal in such a way that they can still protect their pocketbooks. They think that will get the monkey off their backs. Problem is, they don’t want anything to do with all the monkeys they put on the backs of all the law-abiding folk that really care about the communities they live in. Well, we know what they were teaching their children. Everyone on the North Coast lives with that reality.
It all may have seemed a simple matter of survival to all these lawbreakers. Grow and sell a little pot for food and shelter. It’s just a harmless weed that people use for private reasons. What’s the harm? Local businesses were suffering and all that cash money was a god-send. That symbiotic relationship grew until the hills and the towns proliferated with their blood money. In the meantime, no thanks to these criminals, everyone was subjected to their corrupt influences. Mob rule became the norm, the ends justifies the means and now these rebels all want everyone to forgive and forget; amnesty. So, is it any surprise that the Bush Republican’s and their complicit enablers’ assault on the law these past years gets the same pass? Read the following article by Glenn Greenwald and see if the hair doesn’t stand up on the back of your neck everytime you think about what these people have done to society.
Tuesday March 3, 2009 06:31 EST
Various universal perception biases always make it difficult to assess how genuinely consequential contemporary events are: events in the present always seem more important than ones in the past; those that affect us directly appear more significant than those that are abstract, etc. (though powers of denial — e.g.: all of those bad things I’ve read about in history can’t happen to me and my country and my time — undercut those biases). Whatever else is true, it seems undeniably clear, at the very least, that the extreme decay and instabilities left in the wake of the Bush presidency will alter many aspects of the social order in radical and irrevocable (albeit presently unknowable) ways.
One of the central facts that we, collectively, have not yet come to terms with is how extremist and radical were the people running the country for the last eight years. That condition, by itself, made it virtually inevitable that the resulting damage would be severe and fundamental, even irreversible in some sense. It’s just not possible to have a rotting, bloated, deeply corrupt and completely insular political ruling class — operating behind impenetrable walls of secrecy — and avoid the devastation that is now becoming so manifest. It’s just a matter of basic cause and effect.
Yet those who have spent the last several years pointing out how unprecedentedly extremist and radical was our political leadership (and how meek and complicit were our other key institutions) were invariably dismissed as shrill hysterics. As but one of countless highly illustrative examples, here is a November, 2004 David Broder column scoffing at the notion that there was anything radical or unusual taking place in the U.S., dismissively deriding the claim that there was anything resembling an erosion of basic checks and safeguards in the United States:
Bush won, but he will have to work within the system for whatever he gets. Checks and balances are still there. The nation does not face “another dark age,” unless you consider politics with all its tradeoffs and bargaining a black art.
That was (and still is) the prevailing attitude among our political and media elites: it was those who were sounding alarm bells about the radicalism and damage of the Bush administration — not Bush officials themselves — who were the real radicals and, worst of all, were deeply Unserious.
* * * * *
Anyone get the connection?