About 58 pot plants seized outside Yampa

Advertisement

photo

Courtesy photo

Deborah Kay Eck

— Two SWAT teams led by the Routt County Sheriff’s Office searched two homes in the Yampa area Wednesday morning. Inside one of the homes, deputies reportedly found a marijuana-growing operation with about 58 marijuana plants and dried marijuana.

Inside the house with marijuana, outside of Yam­pa, deputies arrested 61­-year­-old Deborah Kay Eck, of Phipps­burg, on suspicion of cultivating marijuana and on a “special offender” charge. The special offender tag can be added when a person has previously been convicted of a marijuana-distribution charge, or if the person is thought to be distributing marijuana.

Sheriff’s Office Investigator Ken Klinger said the bust was a result of a tip from a person who came forward to the Sheriff’s Office.

A search of the second house, in Yampa town limits, turned up nothing illegal, Kling­­er said.

In the first house, the majority of the plants were 26 to 28 inches tall, Klinger said, with some younger plants also growing, all within the house. The address of the house was not available Wednesday.

The two SWAT teams, with seven members apiece, had law enforcement officers from the Sheriff’s Office, Colorado State Parks and the Hayden Police Department. Two detectives from Eagle County and four evidence technicians also were at the scene.

The investigation will continue as detectives sort through evidence, Klinger said. He said Eck did not have a medical marijuana license and was not a caregiver.

Klinger said Eck was the only person inside either home. She was booked into the Routt County Jail at 11:25 a.m. and released on $10,000 bail, paid by a bondsman, at 3 p.m. She is scheduled to appear in Routt County Court at 8:30 a.m. Jan. 19.

A phone number for Eck could not be found Wednes­day.

Comments

1999 5 years ago

The two SWAT teams, with seven members apiece, had law enforcement officers from the Sheriff’s Office, Colorado State Parks and the Hayden Police Department. Two detectives from Eagle County and four evidence technicians also were at the scene.

sounds like about 25 people????

bahahahahahahahahaha

sounds like reno 911

0

JJ Southard 5 years ago

LMAO @ 1999.... oh man, comedy gold!!

They must've been scared that this senior citizen, marijuana-growing King-pin was going to throw up a fight!! I mean 60+ year old marijuana dealers are "special offenders"... LOL yeah, she's special alright....especially screwed now. I wonder how they found out about her?...she was copping bud sacks at the local BINGO night I bet, and some the crack crew out at the RC Sheriffs office wired up ole Bertha, her BINGO partner, and found out they had a Cartel forming in Yampa....LMFAO!! Better get a 25 member SWAT team to kick down the door and start tasering people at random, I mean these are 60+ers in Yampa!! Be sure it's after hours too so they all can get some taxpayer-funded, overtime.

Oh well, they are just doing their jobs. Honestly, I can't blame them for doing their jobs, just seems like major over-kill on their "team" size. :- /

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

Well, they presumably searched both houses simultaneously so that required two teams. And 58 plants is probably a lot less than what they were expecting Note that a bust of a house growing operation last year found thousands of plants.

I can imagine that her defense will be that she is a mmj grower that started her plants while her patients got their prescriptions. If she has friends with mmj prescriptions show up at trial saying they were going to get their mmj from her then the prosecution's case gets very weak. That could be her explanation of why 58 as compared to hundreds and why some in different growing stages and so on.

0

Brian Kotowski 5 years ago

If she doesn't have the state approved credentials for medical mmj, she'd be SOL at trial, I'd think.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

It obviously depend upon the jury. I'm just observing that the number of plants was few enough that it allows her to have a story of how she intended to be a mmj grower. Apparently neither cash or guns were seized so there does not appear to be clear evidence of an organized drug distribution operation.

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

State approved credentials? I wonder if her back hurts or if she experiences arthritic symptoms? She is 61 after all.

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

And having been raised by a former SWAT team member, I can assure you that two teams was overkill for this operation. It probably went a little something like, "Ok guys. We've got an anonymous tip about some old lady farming up some reefer in Yampa. Since none of you are doing anything else tonight, we're all suiting up and we're going to scare the ever-lovin' bujesus out of her. Shouldn't take more than a couple hours and coffee will be provided as usual. Post operation debrief will take place at Village Inn."

There was no need to rally all of the troops but what the hell else are these guys gonna do? Not go?

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

The police were probably told there was a major growing operation and distribution business. To get a search warrants means they had probable cause which is more than some anonymous tip. They must have had good reasons to be concerned about the houses being protected by armed drug dealers. There is no reason to believe the police did anything other than what they were supposed to do.

Though there is an obvious huge difference between what they expected to find and what they found. Their tip was obviously wrong about the house in Yampa. And they did not find the evidence of a major drug growing or distribution business. Which is why I think she has a pretty good defense.

0

blue_spruce 5 years ago

stop wasting my money

if this is all the cops have to do with their time, then furlow some of them - the city budget could use every penny!!! what a disgusting waste of resources....

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

I wonder if it was overtime pay. Christmas is right around the corner after all.

0

freerider 5 years ago

Looks like the Storm troopers are out protecting corporate profits again ...The Government wants you hooked on drugs as long as it's their drugs your hooked on...oxycontin, viagra, nicotine , alcohol , anything that comes from the sphincter of Eli Lilly or Merck . Let's all cheer for the Fascist corporate rule , and knowing that we have all been saved from a demon senior citizen drug cartel in Yampa ....I wonder if she watch's " WEEDS "

0

JLM 5 years ago

Female, indoor grown, marijuana plants have a production range of from 3.5 - 16 ounces per plant.

The higher range of the yields is quite easily attained using a bit of Miracle Gro and some simple light manipulation to force blooming.

Wholesale pricing is approximately $1600/lb and street pricing is about $2250/lb.

That gives you a wholesale value range of $20,300 to $92,800; and, a street value of $28,547 to $130,500. [Please doublecheck my math, Ding Dongs, but don't strain yourself. I did it very quick.]

If she were growing a "gourmet" cultivar or variant the pricing could be up to 150% more than noted above. And why shouldn't she?

If she were at the high end of the yield range, growing a gourmet cultivar and was careful about to whom she sold it --- the lady had a nice little business. Right?

The police would have no problem obtaining a probable cause affidavit and a search warrant given the above values.

So, this lady is going to face a pretty tough beef. She will get probation if she has an otherwise clean record and she can get back to playing bingo by Saturday.

0

JJ Southard 5 years ago

Yikes!! Miracle Gro??!! Gimme a break!! That's the worst thing you could ever feed a plant that is to be consumed by humans..... Oh wait.... We love chemicals!!..We're Americans!!

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

It almost sounds like someone is/was a law enforcement type.

0

MrTaiChi 5 years ago

It's ironic. I'd bet that this woman would be more embarrassed and shamed by the characterizations of her above as old. OK to snicker and giggle at her expense because she's over sixty, but it is righteous indignation to take offense at being poked fun at as a "Ding Dong" or "stoner."

Her picture shows a woman who was once probably damned attractive, and to men of her age, probably still pretty foxy. I'd like to know her life story, probably pretty interesting; a hippy, flower child, social skinny dipper, free thinker? Oops! fell into my own complaint about stereotyping.

Anyway, shame on you right wingers out there hurting the feelings of those to whom mj is central to their identity. The proper term is "dopers."

0

trump_suit 5 years ago

JLM's tactic of name calling (poseur, fakir, naif) moving on to ding dong and other such inflamnatory tactics will backfire on the GOP. I forget what he called me in a different thread, but it was of a similar nature becuase I disagree with his opinions. I believe that it was about the goals and aspirations of the Tea Party movement.

Just becuase two people disagree over an issue does not make one of them the "voice of reason" and the other a "ding dong". As always there is truth on both sides and a compromise could be reached if each would listen instead of rant.

Are you going to include me in your ding dong list too JLM? If have already stated multiple times for the record that alhough I argue for and support the legalization of all substances, I do not use them. Does that make me a ding dong because I disagree with your opinion? Disparaging others does not make you look better, and more importantly, it does not make you right.

The effects of this "War on Drugs" to our society are causing more ham and damage than the use/abuse of the drugs themselves. It is time to stop fighting this losing cause and spend our resources in more effective ways.

Regardless of the constant assertions from the Right, prohibition is an excellent example of the Gov't fighting a losing effort to control the populations activities with substance abuse. During the time of prohibition our country experienced many of the same problems that we have today with guns, gangs and violence. When prohibition ended, the flow of black market profits dried up and the Gov't was able to get the gangs and guns back under control. There is a lesson here if you open your mind to other solutions than the current crime and punishment approach. Yes, that was almost 100 years ago, but the lesson remains the same.

What about it JLM, are you willing to listen to anyone that disagrees with you, or are you just a megaphone with no ears to listen and learn? You might actually read some of the findings on the articles posted here and you might learn that there are actually many medical uses for the plant you so disparage. You might also learn that your vaunted knowledge of Indca/Sativa/Hemp is pretty far fetched and way off base. It is clear from your postings that you do not know as much about the subject as you pretend.

0

JJ Southard 5 years ago

trump_suit, thank you.

"You might also learn that your vaunted knowledge of Indca/Sativa/Hemp is pretty far fetched and way off base." As I stated above... exactly.

"It is clear from your postings that you do not know as much about the subject as you pretend." My sentiments exactly.

JackLumpMoron, nobody is buying your crap. You flushed your own credibility down the toilet a long time ago. Please, spare us the BS.

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

He's just another zealot that's got a few wires crossed the wrong way in his control center, if ya catch my drift.

MrTaiChi-- There's no need to get all defensive. I wasn't making a joke at her expense. 61 isn't exactly 18 and most people around that age have issues that are not all that far off from what I mentioned. There was nothing in my post that insulted her intelligence or poked fun at any "flaw(s)" she might have. I agree that she was probably a fox in her youth and might still be a fox to the applicable age group(s). The fact that you may be creeping up on this age is no excuse to try and make some big issue out of it. Besides, growing old is a fantastic thing. As a very wise former-employer of mine once said, it sure as hell beats the alternative.

0

JJ Southard 5 years ago

MrTaiChi Chi Chi Chill......... If you were referring to my 1st post on this thread, you will noticed that I was poking fun at the size crew the cops needed to raid one house that was not even involved and the other did have a marijuana operation going (with a bunch of tiny plants) that was operated by someone over 60. Now, it strikes me as unusual (because it is), that a lady in her 60s is growing a crop of mj plants. It's kinda shocking. Especially when it's all over the news that they hand out legal licenses like candy (unfortuantely for those of us that are legit) to grow, possess and even supply it....but she didn't have one. Soooo, my point was, how did they cops find out about her? She couldn't have been high on their list of leads for mj grow operations.... because if they think they found something big here... if they think this poor, lil ole hippy lady is a really major player in this region when it comes to illegal mj production and distribution?...then the cops are really struggling around here. But, it probably was a nosey neighbor. JLM, do you live in Yampa? LOL....

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

Well, at the least, we know that JLM and aich would be perfect neighbors.

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

I wonder if the flash-bang tactic is obligatory or if they just wanted to test out a new batch?

0

Brian Kotowski 5 years ago

Even though I reside on the 'live & let live' side of the ledger, I have zero sympathy for Ms. Eck. Ya plays the game, ya takes yer chances. If you win, more power to you. If you get busted, tough cookies. She willfully engaged in an illegal activity. She gambled and lost. Call your mommy, have a good cry, hire a lawyer, and chalk it up to a lesson learned the hard way.

I'm also not in the least bit perturbed by law enforcement's deployment of overwhelming force. I'm a transplant to these parts, as I suspect many of us are, from larger metro areas. Anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together is cognizant of the violence that can attend production/sale/distribution of controlled substances. I have seriously considered acquiring the laughably easy-to-get state approved credentials, enabling me to grow medical mmj for sale to dispensaries. We're talking serious bucks, and all of it legal. The only thing giving me pause is the possibility of some wanna be gang banger deciding that my weed is his weed.

It will shortly cease to be an issue. My prediction: mmj will be legal within 5 years.

0

aichempty 5 years ago

I suspect that a competitor turned her in. Probably a "legal" medical pot supplier. Her previous involvements probably bar her from obtaining a license to sell to dispensaries.

And they say pot doesn't hurt anybody . . . .

0

mmjPatient22 5 years ago

It must be nice to live in a state of mind where you can make anything up and be absolutely confident in it's validity and infallibility.

Pot doesn't hurt people. Idiots that make and enforce ridiculous drug laws, and morons that put out complete lies/misinformation, hurt people.

0

Scott Wedel 5 years ago

California is probably going to make it legal in 7 months. Their initiative not only makes it legal, but creates the complete legal framework of growing, distribution and taxation.

If California makes it legal then I predict Colorado will quickly follow.

0

aichempty 4 years, 11 months ago

Nobody can make it "legal" under state law when it's illegal under federal law.

Colorado and California can no more legalize pot than they can legalize bank robbery, kidnapping, treason, or tax evasion.

I sort of hope that both states do "make it legal," and then allow people set up shops to sell the stuff. The feds will have to act, and then we'll get to the bottom of this issue one way or another.

I can see a DEA, DOJ and IRS combined state-wide bust of pot retailers, and maybe US Postal Inspection Service too, if people sell and ship it through the mail. Openly selling pot in a retail store is TRAFFICKING, and somebody will have to do something about it.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

aich- CA is going to vote on legalizing marijuana in 2010 and there is an EXTREMELY high likelihood that the voters will voice their desires on the matter in epic proportions. Should the measure pass, which is fairly likely, the response from the federal government will be minimal, at best. The white house will probably not instate some gang-busters-raid-a-thon across CA, but there will probably be some very over-zealous response(s) from various law enforcement/drug agencies. Regardless of the response from any agency or governing body, the result of the democratic process known as "voting" will be clearly evident if it passes. It's a pity that more people don't respect what that vote represents. It's equally as pitiful that more people don't respect, or recognize, the validity inherent in an issue even showing up on the ballot(passed or not). This isn't to say that every issue on a ballot is worthy of approval, quite the contrary. It does, however, speak to the very core values of our nation. The value of one person having one vote, especially in a system that is supposed to be governed and ruled according to the will of the majority of the votes, is priceless. When the issue comes up on our ballot, and mark my words that it will, vote your opinion and leave it be. To antagonize and/or persecute those that are provided for by the law is nothing short of providing or provoking the same atmosphere that inspired our forefathers to enter into a state of war in protection of their freedom(s) and rights. They fought in opposition of tyrannical reign and don't think for a second that there aren't multitudes of American citizens that are cut from the same rebellious fabric as our forefathers.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

There will be a legal showdown shortly on the issue of marijuana. It is inevitable.

While the Obama administration and the Attorney General have looked the other way, they simply do not have the luxury of deciding unilaterally what Federal laws to enforce and which ones to ignore. The law does not work that way. Law enforcement is compelled to enforce all laws in the manner in which they are written.

At some time in the near future, an individual or law enforcement agency will file a "mandamus" lawsuit against the Federal government. A mandamus lawsuit compels a governmental agency to enforce its own laws. In many states, a successful mandamus lawsuit compels the government to pay the legal fees of the successful plaintiff while also awarding punitive damages in egregious instances.

This will be a high stakes gamble by a plaintiff but the winnings may arguably be huge.

I suspect that the legalization of marijuana referenda will meet the same fate as those to legalize "gay marriage" which have been soundly defeated in every vote ever taken. The use of marijuana is not nearly as widespread as its advocates would profess and its users are not a consistent and active voting block. Compare that with gay rights advocates who are generally well educated, affluent and reliable voters. Stoners have a tendency to be disaffected escapist losers who will find it difficult to even remember to vote.

I seriously doubt that our Founding Fathers brought forth our Nation to ensure that everybody could smoke pot. I doubt that any of the current stoner advocacy could hold the jock of any of our Founding Fathers who were serious men of accomplishment and noble purpose. They did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time getting high.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

"They did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time getting high."

But lining 'em up at the local watering hole, or spending a nice evening at home with a bottle of Jack gets two thumbs up from Uncle Sam.

"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ Sep --- moderation in all things, even legal things

Our Founding Fathers did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time getting high on dope or liquor.

"...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Even the pursuit of happiness does not require a drop of alcohol or a puff of weed.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

But if someone chooses to pursue their happiness through either alcohol or marijuana, does it make their pursuit any less valid? Granted, if they harm someone else in the process....well, that's a whole other story. But safely pursuing happiness, regardless of means or your approval of them, is my right as an American. The individual right to find your own happiness, once again safely, is most certainly one of the things those men fought and bled for. As a matter of fact, and you already know this, a good number of these men all grew cannabis. The simple fact remains that it was ok for them but illegal for us.
And don't go all 6th grade on me and pull out the slavery card. Yeah, they had slaves. Does it make it ok? No. Unequivocally NO!
But honestly, try to find a comparison(apples to apples, not apples to applejacks) that explains why the founders of this country could grow cannabis but today's Americans could face grave penalties if they were to even attempt it.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 11 months ago

The lawsuit against the federal government would never happen. All the feds have to say is that the local jurisdiction is welcome to enforce their own laws against marijuana.

That sort of lawsuit would seem to need a situation where the feds have exclusive authority such as National Forest lands. It is typically very hard to make some government take action enforcing their laws. It is easier to overturn government actions that failed to follow the appropriate laws.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

Look, mmj, I know you're probably stoned and don't recall all our earlier lessons and probably have a bit of reading comprehension challenge to boot but I will try one last time.

The US was a colony of England which at that time was the greatest naval power in the world --- they had a lot of ships. Ships at that time were powered by sail and sails were controlled by halyards --- ropes --- made of hemp.

The major source of hemp in the world at that time was Russia which the French --- the mortal enemy of the English don't you know --- were actively interdicting both by land and sea.

The English developed a great resource of naval --- lumber, pitch, turpentine, hemp --- stores in their Colonies. Hemp was a particulary lucrative crop.

The English used to routinely refit their ships after a strenuous voyage across the Atlantic including re-rigging their ships.

This is one of the reasons why coastal Americans became such great shipbuilders.

The American colonists grew cannabis sativa for its long, strong fibers with which to make hemp and with which to make rope for rigging of sailing vessels. The making of hemp ropes is particulary labor intensive as the long hemp stems had to be soaked in a solution to reduce the bark before exposing and harvesting the long, strong fibers. Slave labor was used, in particular, to do this hard work.

The Colonists used to spin rope and coat it with pitch thinned with turpentine to make a naval rope for sheets and halyards of their naval vessels.

In addition to rope, hemp was also used in the manufacture of "lindsey-woolsey" fabric which was used to make strong outdoor clothing. The original LL Bean type outdoor clothing on the frontier.

So, no the Colonists were not cultivating marijuana to smoke, they were cultivating hemp to make ropes and fabric. Sheesh!

Test in the morning, dopers.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

Well, no actually mandamus actions are fairly common in the gambling industry, as an example, where the Federal government has compacts with Indian tribes and state laws are at odds with those compacts. Mandamus actions are routinely used to force state and federal jurisdictions to coordinate their law enforcement efforts and are often threatened by law enforcement itself.

You must know, for example, that in California the Federal government was at complete odds with and routinely raided California medical marijuana establishments until the Obama administration came into office. Thereafter AG Holder let it be known that such enforcement actions were not viewed with the same priority as the prior administration. He was extremely, extremely, extremely careful to make his pronouncements in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of his announcing that they would NOT enforce the law for this very reason.

This is a particulary ripe opportunity to force the Feds to enforce their own laws.

In the marijuana business, the entrenched liquor distribution lobby will take action when they begin to believe the competitive impact of illegal medical marijuana distribution becomes detrimental to their financial interests. This has already surfaced as a potential cause of action in industry circles.

While it is not exactly the same thing, it is very common for interested parties to "intervene" in high level litigation at the SCOTUS level as a "friend of the court" in order to influence the determination of a particular issue.

The big cost here is the cost of the actual litigation. A mandamus action sets up a potential jackpot for a big lawfirm as they can recover their legal fees in a successful lawsuit.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

JLM- Once again, your ignorance of the cannabis plant and it's uses is staggering. Our blessed cannabis sativa, the one you claim was grown for ropes and such, is the exact same family of cannabis plant that produced the medicine I just took. If, as you claim, this variety of cannabis was the one that George and his buddies grew for industrial purposes, then they would have undoubtedly had to deal with the "problem" of figuring out a use or purpose for the flowers of this plant. One can imagine that, at the very least, the flowers were not thrown away in waste. As we have previously discussed(seeing as how you want to make conversational recall an issue), George had a journal where he noted the importance of separating(or sicing) the males from the females. Note that it was not the other way around, suggesting that the males were destined for early harvest(death), whereas the females were left to continue to mature and thrive towards flowering. Once the females reach a certain maturity, they begin to produce flower buds. These beautiful little flowers are the medicine that so many hold so dear. That being said, and assuming that George & company weren't idiots(which they were most certainly not), they would have wanted the longest fibers possible. You've said this yourself. Tell me, how do you get long, durable cannabis fibers, using cannabis sativa(and remember, he separated the males early to avoid having the females produce seeds), while avoiding the issue of dealing with cannabis sativa flower buds?

Well, I'll tell ya JLM, you don't. You can come back with some more BS if you fancy but the truth of the matter is that you do NOT know what you are talking about.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

JLM writes: "Our Founding Fathers did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time getting high on dope or liquor."

Nice straw man. What makes you believe it's an either or proposition? Has everyone been spending their "whole time getting high" since the 18th Amendment was repealed?

"Even the pursuit of happiness does not require a drop of alcohol or a puff of weed."

Straw Man, Part Deux. It also doesn't require listening to jazz, or smoking cigars, or eating red meat, or driving a Lexus, or shooting an elk, or owning a dog, or living in the Yampa Valley. Fortunately, we're not required to conform to your rigid definitions of what is "require[d]".

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ sep ---

A statement of fact which does not misrepresent or otherwise present an illogical fallacy in a discussion is not a "straw man". Brush up on your rhetoric and debating skills. This is a simple statement of fact. It is either true or not and there is no "if...then" logic employed which is the requisite for establishing a rhetorical straw man.

I require nothing of you in your pursuit of your happiness and agree completely that each individual has their own definition of the happiness they are pursuing. I have not defined or even suggested what Sep would or should pursue in his personal quest for happiness. The more varied the better. We are granted the "pursuit" not the capture of happiness. I wish you well and Godspeed in your personal journey.

However, as you so eloquently point out there is no single pursuit --- as an example smoking illegal marijuana --- which is the only path for the pursuit of your own personal happiness. The variety itself is the freedom that is conveyed.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

Statement: Our Founding Fathers did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time getting high on dope or liquor.

So, in the context of this discussion, those who grow mmj or quote Ben Franklin are after one thing: to "spend [their] whole time getting high on dope or liquor."

False premise=straw man.

It would have been just as useful to proclaim that our Founding Fathers did not found the US of A so you could spend your whole time at a whorehouse. Perfectly accurate, but kind of 4th-grade, don't you think?

My rhetoric & debating skills are just fine. But thanks for the advice, however misplaced.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ sep ---

"So, in the context of this discussion, those who grow mmj or quote Ben Franklin are after one thing: to "spend [their] whole time getting high on dope or liquor."

Hahahahaha, LOL! Reading comprehension problems? 4th grade reading comprehension, you bet!

Apparently your reading is the false premise as I certainly did not say anything even remotely suggesting the absurd statement you make above.

BTW, one of the interesting things about mmj is that one, in fact, cannot grow mmj. "Medical" marijuana only begins to exist as a legal classification of marijuana when it "appears" within a duly licensed mmj distributor --- care giver's possession. The law does not provide for the legal growing of mmj while it does provide for the legal distribution of mmj.

The law does not provide any protection for a marijuana grower whose target audience is a "legal" mmj distributor. This is only another example of how lame and poorly written this law really is.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ mmj ---

OK, you failed the naval stores lesson, let me take a stab at the "hemp" plant lesson. Pay careful attention as I am going to quote from the same dopey references you yourself have previously presented. Remember this is about the history of hemp at the time of the Colonists not to be taken in the current nomenclature context.

"The Cannabis genus was first classified using the "modern" system of taxonomic nomenclature by Carolus Linnaeus in 1753, who devised the system still in use for the naming of species. He considered the genus to be monotypic, having just a single species that he named Cannabis sativa L. (L. stands for Linnaeus, and indicates the authority who first named the species). Linnaeus was familiar with European hemp, which was widely cultivated at the time. In 1785, noted evolutionary biologist Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck published a description of a second species of Cannabis, which he named Cannabis indica Lam....He described C. indica as having poorer fiber quality than C. sativa, but greater utility as an inebriant."

Again, please note that this bit of enlightment is only intended to pinpoint the nomenclature and thinking at the time of the Colonies not current times.

In Colonial times, in fact, the Colonists grew what they then termed cannabis sativa - sativa (modern nomenclature) for its greater growing height because longer fibers were desirable for the manufacture of hemp ropes.

They did, in fact, kill off the male plants to prevent the female plants from diverting growing energy to the creation of seed pods. This is an obvious plant genetics practice as even today one pinches off the buds on an azalea to promote stronger plant growth.

They also cut off lower branches --- remember the cannabis sativa - sativa grew to 20' feet --- to avoid knots in the internal fibers and cut off the blooms also to prevent the plant's vigor from being diverted.

Remember that even now cannabis sativa - sativa grown for hemp production in other countries employs these same practices to create long, strong fiber. These plants have THC levels of less than 1% while cultivars, hybrids and cross breeds with the cannabis sativa - indica have THC levels of up to 25%.

These are all normal plant propogation actions which one would take to grow tall, strong female plants to provide unblemished and strong hemp fibers.

Interestingly enough many of these practices were identical to those employed to grow strong tobacco leaf another important Colonial cash crop.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

Last note, the Colonists not only did not grow the type of cannabis (cannabis sativa - indica) which was high in THC (the magic elixir and intoxicant sought by those desirous of getting high) but in their production of tobacco the blooms were not the part of the plant which was smoked.

In dope production the over arching objective is to create blooms which concentrate and deliver the THC when smoked.

In tobacco production the over arching objective is to create strong leaves which concentrate and deliver the desired tobacco smoking experience.

The plant propogation techniques of pinching off sucker growth and discarding the blooms are perfectly consistent techniques between hemp and tobacco production.

Colonists produced both hemp and tobacco on the same farms. They were both great cash crops.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

JLM:

To whom, then, are you ascribing the motivation to "spend [their] whole time getting high on dope or liquor" - if not the people with whom you're having the debate?

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

Let me help you, Sep, ---

"Our Founding Fathers did not found the US of A so "one" could spend "one's" whole time getting high on dope or liquor."

That help your sensitivities, Old Boy?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

Ascribing the most extreme motivations to any activity as a debating tactic is juvenile at best.

Our Founding Fathers didn't include the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights so "one" could spend "one's" whole time killing people. Just as asinine a red herring as the one you're waving around.

"4th grade" may have been too generous.

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

Careful, windle. I only got enthused about RINO McCain's candidacy after he selected Palin. JLM doesn't =me. Cynthia McKinney (I hope) doesn't=you.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ sep ---

You focus on the style and I will focus on the content. Slip into your big girl panties and deal with it. Maybe you are not as smart as a 4th grader?

This is not the Oxford Debating Society but if it were you would be my candidate for Parliamentarian, OK?

0

Brian Kotowski 4 years, 11 months ago

When you have nothing relevant to offer, attack an opponent's manhood. "big girl panties", LOL. Kind of like when Ronnie Heffler called me a doody head when I was 8.

I erred earlier. 4th grade was DEFINITELY too generous.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 11 months ago

JLM, Have you actually studied or read the Colorada MMJ laws??

"BTW, one of the interesting things about mmj is that one, in fact, cannot grow mmj. "Medical" marijuana only begins to exist as a legal classification of marijuana when it "appears" within a duly licensed mmj distributor --- care giver's possession. The law does not provide for the legal growing of mmj while it does provide for the legal distribution of mmj."

Had you actually done "ANY" research on the statute you would find that this issue is completely and totally addressed in the statute. There are specific limitations and guidelines set forth to be followed.

If you had actually read or researched anything on the subject you would further find that your statements about the differences between indica and sativa have as more to do with the climate that the strains originated in than it does with the THC content.

You are simply wrong when you spout off on the issue. Your opinions about drug use and abuse my be quite valid and you bring up many good arguements, but in this case it is quite clear that you are speaking with other parts of your anatomy than your brain. Please do some real research on the laws and issues before you make another post full of blatent lies and false information

In response to your previous question to my post. No making MJ legal will do nothing to stop abuses of other substances. It is my argument that making the simple possession of even cocaine or crack illegal is causing many of our social ills. The black market profits simply cannot be controlled. Sure, make the manufacturing and large scale sales illegal, but why should we be arresting individuals that need counseling, friendship and help. What those people do not need is jail time that you and I pay for,

You sure seem willing to let big business run the country unfettered with little or no regulation, why do you not trust the populace with the simple possession of a joint?

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ trump ---

MMJ in Colorado can only be created by a mmj card holder assigning their rights to grow mmj under the law to a designated "care giver". This assignment is limited to the licensed mmj user's allotment of up to 6 plants with only 3 plants flowering at any given time.

Other than the assignment of a licensed mmj user's allotment by the designation of a grower as a "care giver" there is no legal wholesale commercial marijuana agriculture authorized in Colorado.

There are approximatey 5000 licensed mmj users in the mmj Registry.

The common practice of caregivers assigning their rights to grow for their patients to "wholesale" growers is simply illegal though it clearly exists and it is working itself through the courts. The further practice of growing mmj for a patient, supplying him and then selling any excess is also illegal.

Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution spells it out clearly ---

"4 (a) (II) No more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana."

If there are only 5000 mmj patients in the state, then there should not ever be more than 30,000 plants with no more than 15,000 being mature.

Interstingly enough, Colorado is apparently #1 in the country in the use of marijuana --- legal or otherwise.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

5000 mmj users in the mmj registry?

From what epoch did you excavate this relic of "fact?" The real number hasn't been that low for some time now.

You truly are an idiot. But you know what they say about dogs and vomit.

0

JLM 4 years, 11 months ago

@ mmj ---

You are absolutely correct. My figures were outdated. There are approximately 14,000 + mmj Registry members as of August 2009. My apologies. Thank you for correcting me.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years, 11 months ago

Concerning the private spat above relating to grammar and the Constitution, I would like to make this contribution:

The late Meg Geeenfield was a columnist for Newsweek who was, as I remember, a little left of center, but nothing like the current staff. She used good grammar; (there, I've completed that task), but may have been assisted by a small army of graduate students hired at modest pay by the magazine to backstop the columnists, as there is a world full of grammar police. (note careful use of singular verb with subject noun, notwithstanding the plural noun object).

She made the observation once that in claims of infringement of Constitutional rights there is often an etiology of thought that goes something like this: Something I want is something I need. Something I need is something I'm entitled to. Something I'm entitled to is something I have a right to. Something I have a right to is protected by the Constitution.

Happy New Year to all people of good will.

My resolution for 2010 is to avoid sophistry in my Pilot arguments and to watch my grammar.

Thanks to all for the mental exercise that this diversion allows.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

Well, since this is an on-line English grammar class now.....

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 11 months ago

And for those of you that missed this link in the other pot comment boards;

http://www.alternet.org/story/144838/

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.