Another "retired" farmer

Posted by: RedGreen

Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 01:22 AM

Man that house had to smell like a skunks butt lol.
-----------------------------------------------

Large Pot Operation Busted in Seneca County

Last Update: 1/08 3:36 pm
Seneca Falls, N.Y. -- The Seneca County Sheriff’s Office says it has shut down a large marijuana growing and sales operation in Seneca Falls.

Seneca County Sheriff’s Office Narcotics investigators searched the home of Michael S. O’Malley, 25, of 2502 Lower Lake Road, Seneca Falls and allegedly found “an elaborate, extensive and complex indoor hydroponics marijuana growing operation.”

Deputies say there were several rooms with “commercial grade vented exhaust systems, tented growing stations, extensive indoor grow lighting and watering systems.”

Investigators say they seized 68 marijuana plants, seven pounds of marijuana packaged for sale, five pounds of marijuana precursors, all with a street value of more than $40,000. Police also seized brass knuckles, a stun gun, cocaine and drugs, and over $5,000 in marijuana growing equipment, and more than $83,000 in cash from the house, a safety deposit box, and at least two bank accounts.

O’Malley is being held in the Seneca County Correctional Facility on $40,000 bail or $80,000 bond.

He has been charged with first-degree criminal possession of marijuana, fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon, seventh-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, and unlawfully growing cannabis without a license.

More arrests are expected.

Posted by: *Sparkey*

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 04:06 AM

WOW..I wonder if this business had a DBA..LOL
Posted by: Mountain Man

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 04:44 AM

We've got to change this law. We'll never stop pot. Never.
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 04:58 AM

I agree.... I can't believe Paterson allows this... he wants to tax soda and everything else under the sun... why not weed!

LEGALIZE and TAX it!
Posted by: HeavenlyPlaces

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:21 AM

Oh NO! I'm so sorry to see this.
Posted by: *Sparkey*

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:22 AM

Originally Posted By: HeavenlyPlaces
Oh NO! I'm so sorry to see this.


OH NO!!Tell us this guy was not your connection,HP...LOL..J/K
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:24 AM

Well now I know what caused the recent *dry spell* LOL
Posted by: *Sparkey*

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Well now I know what caused the recent *dry spell* LOL


hehehehe
Posted by: HeavenlyPlaces

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:26 AM

Originally Posted By: *Sparkey*
Originally Posted By: HeavenlyPlaces
Oh NO! I'm so sorry to see this.


OH NO!!Tell us this guy was not your connection,HP...LOL..J/K


Just someone I know....used to play with my kids.
Posted by: *Sparkey*

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:27 AM

Originally Posted By: HeavenlyPlaces
Originally Posted By: *Sparkey*
Originally Posted By: HeavenlyPlaces
Oh NO! I'm so sorry to see this.


OH NO!!Tell us this guy was not your connection,HP...LOL..J/K


Just someone I know....used to play with my kids.



It's always the quiet ones!!
Posted by: HeavenlyPlaces

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 05:30 AM

He was NEVER quiet! LOL and unfortunately, it doesn't surprise me...but it makes me sad. The kid never really had a chance given some of what he was exposed to growing up.
Posted by: grinch

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 08:21 AM

Congratulations to the Seneca County Sheriff's Department. Nice work Sheriff Stenberg.

Some of you think this should be legalized, however there are valid reasons why it is against the law. Laws have to be enforced or risk anarchy.
Posted by: The Mask

Re: Another "retired" farmer *DELETED* *DELETED* - 01/09/10 09:27 AM

Post deleted by The Mask
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Well now I know what caused the recent *dry spell* LOL
It was me hording.
Posted by: grinch

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:51 AM

Retarded? Then the majority of people in this country are retarded and only the sane (insane?) people are smoking weed or in prison because they did, or have not yet been caught.

I am not the one sneaking around buying this stuff, nor spaced out on its effects. My life and income are secure and I do not fear a urine sample either. A urine sample should be mandatory for welfare people as well as municipal, fire fighters and government employees. I am not worried this individual might rat me out as some of you may be. It would be great if he did and lock up the dealers and the users so we would get them off the street and roads.

I am on this side of the bars looking in, not looking out.

Valid enough reasons for me and most everyone else who can think straight because they do not use illegal drugs.

Again congratulations to all law enforcement personnel for enforcing the law.

If you want to debate the "merits" of this illegal substance, go find somebody else who will listen to you, say the Sheriff or the Police department, even your employer, if you are able to find a job. My firm had a no tolerance rule, caught once, your done. All firms should have that approach.




Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:58 AM

I just hope they finally nail the other ones that are involved.
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: grinch
Retarded? Then the majority of people in this country are retarded and only the sane (insane?) people are smoking weed or in prison because they did, or have not yet been caught.

I am not the one sneaking around buying this stuff, nor spaced out on its effects. My life and income are secure and I do not fear a urine sample either. A urine sample should be mandatory for welfare people as well as municipal, fire fighters and government employees. I am not worried this individual might rat me out as some of you may be. It would be great if he did and lock up the dealers and the users so we would get them off the street and roads.

I am on this side of the bars looking in, not looking out.

Valid enough reasons for me and most everyone else who can think straight because they do not use illegal drugs.

Again congratulations to all law enforcement personnel for enforcing the law.

If you want to debate the "merits" of this illegal substance, go find somebody else who will listen to you, say the Sheriff or the Police department, even your employer, if you are able to find a job. My firm had a no tolerance rule, caught once, your done. All firms should have that approach.






Well at least you are open minded about it!
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 10:38 AM

"...and unlawfully growing cannabis without a license."

One may obtain a license in NY? Hmmm...

Oh well, rookies...
Posted by: The Mask

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:00 AM

Originally Posted By: grinch
Retarded? Then the majority of people in this country are retarded and only the sane (insane?) people are smoking weed or in prison because they did, or have not yet been caught.

I am not the one sneaking around buying this stuff, nor spaced out on its effects. My life and income are secure and I do not fear a urine sample either. A urine sample should be mandatory for welfare people as well as municipal, fire fighters and government employees. I am not worried this individual might rat me out as some of you may be. It would be great if he did and lock up the dealers and the users so we would get them off the street and roads.

I am on this side of the bars looking in, not looking out.

Valid enough reasons for me and most everyone else who can think straight because they do not use illegal drugs.

Again congratulations to all law enforcement personnel for enforcing the law.

If you want to debate the "merits" of this illegal substance, go find somebody else who will listen to you, say the Sheriff or the Police department, even your employer, if you are able to find a job. My firm had a no tolerance rule, caught once, your done. All firms should have that approach.






Thank you for your response with all very valid reasons.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
We've got to change this law. We'll never stop pot. Never.

I agree. I didn't work with prohibition against alcohol, and it doesn't work with marijuana.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Kitty
"...and unlawfully growing cannabis without a license."

One may obtain a license in NY? Hmmm...

Oh well, rookies...


It's a federal requirement that one needs to get a license and pay the tax, and it's virtually impossible to get one. That's a way to lay on another charge, and aso to stifle research:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
HR. 238 [75th]: Marihuana Tax Act
full text
Bill guide 5.png
Signed by the president.
Introduced August 2, 1937
Sponsor(s) Rep. Robert L. Doughton [-]
Source: {{{footnotes}}}
Major U.S. Federal
narcotic laws
Marijuana icon.jpg
1906 Pure Food and Drug Act
Regulates labeling of products containing
certain drugs including cocaine and heroin
1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act
Regulates opiates and cocaine
1937 Marihuana Tax Act
Criminalizes marijuana
1964 Convention on Narcotics
Treaty to control marijuana
1970 Controlled Substance Act
Scheduling list for drugs
v • d • e

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was a significant bill on the path[1] that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Harry Anslinger. The Act is now commonly referred to using the modern spelling as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis, but levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did include penalty provisions and elaborate rules of enforcement to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to increase the risk for anyone dealing in the substance — at least until World War II required the United States Department of Agriculture to make its 1942 movie "Hemp for Victory". The film encouraged and taught farmers to grow variants of hemp suitable as raw material for hawsers used by the U.S. Navy and the Merchant Marine, prior to the adoption of Nylon rope. The hemp was also used as a substitute for other fibrous materials that were blocked by Japan.

The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[2] and hearings [3]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Some testimonies included that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death"[4]. Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[5] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and a bill that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.[citation needed]

The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp reporting that from 1880 to 1933 the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[6]

In 1967, President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of justice opined, "The Act raises an insignificant amount of revenue and exposes an insignificant number of marijuana transactions to public view, since only a handful of people are registered under the Act. It has become, in effect, solely- a criminal law, imposing sanctions upon persons who sell, acquire, or possess marijuana."[7]

In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[8] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[9]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.

Although the spelling "marijuana" is more common in current usage, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. To stay consistent with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.

In addition, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 legitimized the use of the term "marihuana" as a label for hemp and cannabis plants and products. Prior to 1937, "marihuana/marijuana" was slang; it was not included in any official dictionaries.[10] The slang word marihuana/marijuana is probably of Mexican origin. In the years leading up to the tax act considerable issues existed involving illegal immigration of Mexicans into the United States, and the one thing Mexicans were identified as being in possession of was cannabis,[citation needed] which they called marihuana. The southern border states called for action.[citation needed] . After the enactment, illegal immigrants and U.S. citizens could be arrested for possession of cannabis.

Shortly after the U.S. Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act On Friday, October 1, 1937 the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police first arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell's arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.[11]

Judge Foster Symes sentenced Moses Baca to 18 months and Samuel Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.
Posted by: Mountain Man

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:45 AM

Be that as it may, Grinch, alcohol and tobacco are far more devastating to the family and individual than pot.

But, as you say, it is illegal, and thus I stay away from it. Having done it in my younger life and having had and still having alcohol, I can tell you from my own experience that the alcohol is far more poisonous to the body and mind.

Someday the law will change. Anything abused is a bad thing. Using it doesn't mean abusing it just as having a drink does not make one a drunk.
Posted by: MissLadybugg

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:53 AM

To the posters who are "self rightous" bragging how theY don't smoke weed and want to urine screen everybody and their brother? Get over it.Brag about how you're NOt the one behind bars? SO? BE proud. whatever.Screen the people who are always late for work or calling in,making mistakes on their jobs,, or live their entire lives on welfare.Screen those who are in charge of reforming criminals in the legal realm.
These people who addicted to prescription drugs are the ones who are scary. Pot should not be legal for obvious reasons but if it's smoked in moderation and occasionally,there's nothing wrong with it.Plus,it can help with chronic pain and is often better then piLLs.Of course it's often misused just the same as alcohol and FOOD ect ect..
It does destroy "some" lives and the legal trouble is definitely not worth the buzz.Such a unfair system,besides!!
It's a epidemic in our county and the surrounding ones.People that we would Never expect,, smoke it.Often,it's shocking.
In Cali, people are learning to grow it legally for profit and have no interest in smoking it. Now they offer college credits for this over there.I'm not sure it's worth all the financial gain for these folks, really, but I could be wrong. In any matter,it's here forever and up to us how we deal with it.
See NORML's<yes that's how it's spelled>... website. Interesting reading on that site.
Posted by: pizza man

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:57 AM

maybe if the government would just legalize weed it could help the debt that we are in. it could probably be a billion dollar industry just like tobacco if not more than.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 12:03 PM

"Pot should not be legal for obvious reasons"

What are the obvious reasons?
Posted by: pizza man

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 12:11 PM

yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.


No doubt.
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.
And tell me the reasons it should be legal?
Posted by: Pumper XXX

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 12:44 PM

Once the older closed minded generation fades, away and the younger more tolerant generation comes into its own, maybe then can we have an intelligent debate on this issue.
It did not work for prohibition did not work and the current drug policies are not working. Why WASTE tax payers money on TRYING to control pot. Legalize it and MAKE money from its sale.
Reefer Madness was not an accurate account of the effects of pot. When was the last time you told your kids.... watch out for that person.. he is high on POT..
I do not agree with the legalization of other controlled substances. I also do not buy into the theory of pot being a "gateway" drug. Is a cup of pepsi a "gateway" drug because it can lead to mixing it with Capt Morgans..
Posted by: exnyer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 02:00 PM

And tell me the reasons it should be legal? other than the obvious Taxes, fuel, medical, Jobs, Cut off importation and stop financing cartels Here are 3 reasons why it should be legal

1 freedom of choice
2 life, liberty and the pursuit of "Happiness" (Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy.)
3 I would love to smoke a joint w/ you and talk more. :-)
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 02:12 PM

Originally Posted By: angela
Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.
And tell me the reasons it should be legal?
look at this post... i never did drugs. he said they was a reason.. and i askedwhat reason.. so before you point the finger read it closely.....
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: angela
Originally Posted By: angela
Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.
And tell me the reasons it should be legal?
look at this post... i never did drugs. he said they was a reason.. and i askedwhat reason.. so before you point the finger read it closely.....


Angela...if I understand this post correctly, you are saying you never used drugs. As one of your biggest supporters in your effort to quit smoking, I have to remind you that nicotine is a drug and, BTW, it kills more Americans every year than all illicit drugs combined. Alcohol is second.
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 07:09 PM

Originally Posted By: exnyer
And tell me the reasons it should be legal? other than the obvious Taxes, fuel, medical, Jobs, Cut off importation and stop financing cartels Here are 3 reasons why it should be legal

1 freedom of choice
2 life, liberty and the pursuit of "Happiness" (Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized by contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy.)
3 I would love to smoke a joint w/ you and talk more. :-)
Talking about pot........
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 07:10 PM

He was talking about Pot.... thats what i was trying to say never did pot......
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 08:01 PM

I like the title of the thread.... carry on....
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 08:39 PM

Originally Posted By: angela
He was talking about Pot.... thats what i was trying to say never did pot......


OH. OK. Thanks.
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 08:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Senecamom
I like the title of the thread.... carry on....
Me too... Carry on ....
Posted by: RedGreen

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 08:58 PM

Originally Posted By: angela
Originally Posted By: Senecamom
I like the title of the thread.... carry on....
Me too... Carry on ....

Thanks both. There is a very tongue-in-cheek reason why I chose that title. ;\)
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:06 PM

"nicotine is a drug and, BTW, it kills more Americans every year than all illicit drugs"

Not exactly true. Smoking tobacco kills, and there are about 4,000 chemicals in tobacco. The CO, CO2, formaldehyde, mercury, arsenic, smoke particles, tar, etc., etc., etc.. are at least as dangerous as nicotine.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:07 PM

Bite your tongue, young man!
Posted by: RedGreen

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:08 PM

Posted by: Endoftheroad

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 09:20 PM

Originally Posted By: grinch
Congratulations to the Seneca County Sheriff's Department. Nice work Sheriff Stenberg.

Some of you think this should be legalized, however there are valid reasons why it is against the law. Laws have to be enforced or risk anarchy.


Trust me, Steinburg had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: 315

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/09/10 11:40 PM

amen!!! we put drug dealers away longer then murderers and rapists...make any sense?
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 03:04 AM

Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.



Hemp has been known to make some of the strongest rope, hemp can be made into paper, hemp seeds can also be used for cooking. Not to mention marijuana can take the place of other EXPENSIVE medications to reduce pain and increase appetite in cancer patients.

Not to mention the financial analyst's on CNBC commenting how marijuana is "recession proof" and if anything sale and use INCREASES during time of financial crisis.

Not to mention crowding our jails and prisons with small time marijuana dealers increasing overcrowding and overtime expenses

They spend BILLIONS on "the war on drugs" yet one reservation alone in Northern New York was able to process, move, and sell $710 million in marujuana in 10 years time! That's $710 million they could of TAXED.

Legalizing and taxing marujuana the tax revenue alone could balance the NYS budget
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 03:12 AM

People say marijuana is a *Gateway Drug* but what about all the orthopedic Dr.'s and pain clinics hopping people up for months even years on Oxycodone and Oxycotin...and getting them addicted...then when they don't have enough pills or access to the pill they switch to heroin because it is cheaper and more readily accessible and gives them a similar high??!!??!!
Posted by: kyle585

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 05:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.


They spend BILLIONS on "the war on drugs" yet one reservation alone in Northern New York was able to process, move, and sell $710 million in marujuana in 10 years time! That's $710 million they could of TAXED.

Legalizing and taxing marujuana the tax revenue alone could balance the NYS budget
I can't believe you of all people posted this! You brag about buying cigarettes at reservations cheaply because they pay no tax. What makes you think reservations would pay tax on marijuana if they don't pay it on cigarettes???
Posted by: Teacher73

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 07:24 AM

And in Oakland, California people are signing up for classes that show how to grow it. CNBC had a show highlighting the pot biz and there was this fortyish year old woman who lost her job but figured once she got her room set up she will be able to make a living as a pot farmer. Of course she will be selling to the sanctioned distributors who service those who have been prescribed pot for various ills. Another farm had 20 employees offering profit sharing and health insurance benefits. Don't forget these businesses do pay taxes.
Our situation here may never allow for such circumstances as those on the so called left coast. And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue. Not that the users would care much.
As for this guy who got busted - if past experience serves as a guide - he is in a world of hurt. Betcha he wishes he was in California.
Posted by: kyle585

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 07:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Teacher73
And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue.
Exactly, I am shocked that Scottie2Hottie thinks otherwise. Amazing.
Posted by: The Mask

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: Teacher73
And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue.
Exactly, I am shocked that Scottie2Hottie thinks otherwise. Amazing.


If you want to debate the "Indians not paying taxes" of this illegal substance, go find somebody else who will listen to you, say the Senator or the Congressman, even your Governor. I'm sure this isn't the place for that either.
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 09:49 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
"nicotine is a drug and, BTW, it kills more Americans every year than all illicit drugs"

Not exactly true. Smoking tobacco kills, and there are about 4,000 chemicals in tobacco. The CO, CO2, formaldehyde, mercury, arsenic, smoke particles, tar, etc., etc., etc.. are at least as dangerous as nicotine.


OK, but nicotine is by far the most deadly "chemical" in tobacco. Anyway, you got my point.
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 09:57 AM

Marijuana is a gateway drug, Scottie, which is another good reason to legalize it. It's not a "gateway drug" because it leads you to want to escalate to more dangerous drugs....it doesn't. It's a "gateway drug" because it is illegal so you have to get it from people who may want to sell you more addictive drugs.
Posted by: Teacher73

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 12:11 PM

[quote=threeputt]Marijuana is a gateway drug, Scottie, which is another good reason to legalize it. It's not a "gateway drug" because it leads you to want to escalate to more dangerous drugs....it doesn't. It's a "gateway drug" because it is illegal so you have to get it from people who may want to sell you more addictive drugs. [/quote

Doesn't that give credence to the notion that it should be legal so that the criminal element would not be involved?
Posted by: threeputt

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Teacher73
[quote=threeputt]Marijuana is a gateway drug, Scottie, which is another good reason to legalize it. It's not a "gateway drug" because it leads you to want to escalate to more dangerous drugs....it doesn't. It's a "gateway drug" because it is illegal so you have to get it from people who may want to sell you more addictive drugs. [/quote

Doesn't that give credence to the notion that it should be legal so that the criminal element would not be involved?


Yes, as I said...."another good reason to legalize it."
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/10/10 06:51 PM

Decriminalization: The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.


Possession of 25 grams (0.88 ounces) or less of cannabis is a civil citation punishable by up to a $250 fine and a $100 court surcharge; stricter punishments exist for sale, cultivation, or subsequent offenses. If found in a public place with marijuana burning or in public view, offender can be charged with a misdemeanor, fined $500, and incarcerated up to 3 months.

First-time offenders of all marijuana possession laws and some marijuana sale laws are, with some exception, granted an automatic adjournment of their case in contemplation of dismissal ("ACD"), meaning that if the offender commits no crimes and abides by any conditions set by the court, his or her case will be automatically dismissed after six months.

# ^ "State by State Laws: New York". NORML. 2006. http://www.norml.com/index.cfm?wtm_view=&Group_ID=4554.

# ^ "New York State Criminal Procedure Law Section 170.56". Laws of New York. 2009. http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS.
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:39 AM

Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: Teacher73
And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue.
Exactly, I am shocked that Scottie2Hottie thinks otherwise. Amazing.



Kyle you FORON! What.... the numerous indian threads aren't enough you have to turn this one into one too??!!??
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:05 AM

True the have decriminalized it a bit.... but try and apply for a job somewhere with that on your record!

Also to test for marijuana for jobs is pointless... it can be traceable in your system for up to 8 weeks (depending on usage) So say I celebrated New Years with a joint.... Am I high and effecting my work performance 10 days later??? Answer....NO! but my urine would be positive. Where as cocaine on the other hand is far more detrimental to work, home, finances, safety, etc. etc. but it only stays in the system 3 days....apply for a job...lay low 3 days.... viola you passed and can resume being a coke head!

If I was to have surgery....I would much rather have the surgeon smoke a *fatty* the night before the surgery then go out drinking all night the night before and be hungover or do lines of coke and be *geeking* throughout the surgery!!

Also I have mentioned this before.... Most cancer patients are *disabled* and can't work so they are on medicaid/medicare that the tax payers pay for.... The oncology Dr.'s give the patients numerous medications..... meds for pain, meds for mood, meds for nausea, meds for appetite, etc etc all at the 4000% pharmaceutical mark-up that us tax payers pay for! Spend $30 on weed and give it to the cancer patient.... next thing you know the pain is relieved to a point, their mood enhances, nausea stops, and they raid the fridge for food....total cost $30..... 10+ prescribed pills.....$1,000's/month off the tax payers back!

Not to mention that Marijuana doesn't interfere with any other medications where prescribed meds CAN and the doctors give them MORE pills to combat the side effects.,... all on the taxpayers wallet!
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Teacher73
And in Oakland, California people are signing up for classes that show how to grow it. CNBC had a show highlighting the pot biz and there was this fortyish year old woman who lost her job but figured once she got her room set up she will be able to make a living as a pot farmer. Of course she will be selling to the sanctioned distributors who service those who have been prescribed pot for various ills. Another farm had 20 employees offering profit sharing and health insurance benefits. Don't forget these businesses do pay taxes.
Our situation here may never allow for such circumstances as those on the so called left coast. And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue. Not that the users would care much.
As for this guy who got busted - if past experience serves as a guide - he is in a world of hurt. Betcha he wishes he was in California.


I saw the same episode.... that was the same one that said marijuana was *recession proof*
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:12 AM

before everything went nuts in Albany ...Paterson mentioned briefly about medical marijuana.... but now they are side-tracked by too many things
Posted by: kyle585

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:16 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: Teacher73
And if the Cayugas got to sell it - no tax revenue.
Exactly, I am shocked that Scottie2Hottie thinks otherwise. Amazing.



Kyle you FORON! What.... the numerous indian threads aren't enough you have to turn this one into one too??!!??
Scottie, you brought up reservations and taxes first on this thread, not me! You said that collecting taxes on marijuana on reservations would balance the state budget! And you constantly brag about buying cigs on reservations to avoid taxes! Those two positions are the complete opposite of each other and show that you are totally clueless on the topic of reservations and taxes!
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:27 AM

No I did not I said LEGALIZING Marijuana and TAXING it would balance the state budget.... My info on the $710 million marijuana rez was info on how well the "war on drugs" is going... They were even so bold as to drive around with POUNDS of marijuana in the back of their trucks!!

I have stated numerous times before..... a good portion of my tax dollars go to welfare rats mooching off the system and getting money and *clothing grants* like it is Christmas in July... I have worked *on the books* for 22 years.....WHERE is my free money and *clothing grants* Consider my tax free carton a week my *Welfare* ;\)
Posted by: enda

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:12 AM

I like that...my tax free carton a week is my welfare too. I've been on the books with steady employment for 30 years. As for the weed if I could smoke it and not be drug tested I would, I considered it my "help me tolerate idiots " medicine. I'd rather be on the road with someone who took a few hits than someone who is drunk or high on prescription meds anyday!
Posted by: kyle585

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.


They spend BILLIONS on "the war on drugs" yet one reservation alone in Northern New York was able to process, move, and sell $710 million in marujuana in 10 years time! That's $710 million they could of TAXED.

Legalizing and taxing marujuana the tax revenue alone could balance the NYS budget
Wow you do not even remember what you said the day before, do you?
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:50 AM

Originally Posted By: threeputt
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
"nicotine is a drug and, BTW, it kills more Americans every year than all illicit drugs"

Not exactly true. Smoking tobacco kills, and there are about 4,000 chemicals in tobacco. The CO, CO2, formaldehyde, mercury, arsenic, smoke particles, tar, etc., etc., etc.. are at least as dangerous as nicotine.


OK, but nicotine is by far the most deadly "chemical" in tobacco. Anyway, you got my point.


Nonsense. I don't think nicotine is anywhere near as dangerous as carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and mercury. I forgot to mention lead-210 and polonium-210, which are radioactive, and thallium and cadmium, the latter being what's dangerous about the plating on those Chinese toys. Don't forget about the roughly 4,000 other chemicals.

If nicotine were all that dangerous, the FDA wouldn't have approved it, in the patch and in gum, for instance.
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:59 AM

S2H, you keep stating that you would rather have (fill in the blank) smoking pot that drunk / hung over. How about neither? Does anyone ever think about having a little self control these days? I smokes pot when I was in college, but I never went to class high and I haven't smoked it since. I drink, but I don't drink to the point of getting drunk, nor do I drink when I am going to drive. Just a thought.

I do agree that we waste too much money and energy that could be better directed on pot. Legalize it and move on to something worth fighting.
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:15 AM

Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Originally Posted By: pizza man
yea but there are reasons for it to be legal.


They spend BILLIONS on "the war on drugs" yet one reservation alone in Northern New York was able to process, move, and sell $710 million in marujuana in 10 years time! That's $710 million they could of TAXED.

Legalizing and taxing marujuana the tax revenue alone could balance the NYS budget
Wow you do not even remember what you said the day before, do you?


After it was distributed (off the rez) it could have been taxed

Regardless this is NOT a cigarette/indian/reservation thread ...so please forget I even mention indians or reservations

Note to self: Not allowed to say indian or reservation on FL1 threads without it being taken over!
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Greymane
S2H, you keep stating that you would rather have (fill in the blank) smoking pot that drunk / hung over. How about neither? Does anyone ever think about having a little self control these days? I smokes pot when I was in college, but I never went to class high and I haven't smoked it since. I drink, but I don't drink to the point of getting drunk, nor do I drink when I am going to drive. Just a thought.

I do agree that we waste too much money and energy that could be better directed on pot. Legalize it and move on to something worth fighting.




In a perfect world self control would be nice... but I live in the REAL world and know that there is a good chance that won't happen.


Look at the 3 mothers in CNY that have been charged already under the new DWI law that makes it a FELONY to drink and drive with a child in the car...and the law is only less than 3 weeks old!
Posted by: dj205

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Originally Posted By: Greymane
S2H, you keep stating that you would rather have (fill in the blank) smoking pot that drunk / hung over. How about neither? Does anyone ever think about having a little self control these days? I smokes pot when I was in college, but I never went to class high and I haven't smoked it since. I drink, but I don't drink to the point of getting drunk, nor do I drink when I am going to drive. Just a thought.

I do agree that we waste too much money and energy that could be better directed on pot. Legalize it and move on to something worth fighting.




In a perfect world self control would be nice... but I live in the REAL world and know that there is a good chance that won't happen.


Look at the 3 mothers in CNY that have been charged already under the new DWI law that makes it a FELONY to drink and drive with a child in the car...and the law is only less than 3 weeks old!


Isn't being high on Pot an equivelant to DWI? Driving under
the influence of drugs?
Posted by: Your Mom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:00 AM

every single person on here should probably get a damn life, rather than talking on here for DAYS about something that you all have probably done be4. whether he was busted or not, there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY. SO...instead of focusing on THIS topic, go to the damn store, get some more food, & sit on your computer and talk about other things rather than JUST this..or here's a thought, get a damn job and go buy a life. i'm out, peace<3
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY.


Uhmnnn.......approximately how many billions in NEW YORK, would you estimate?
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
They spend BILLIONS on "the war on drugs" yet one reservation alone in Northern New York was able to process, move, and sell $710 million in marujuana in 10 years time! That's $710 million they could of TAXED.



The indians don't pay taxes now cigarettes why would they pay taxes om marijuana? The state isn't going to make them.


Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie
Legalizing and taxing marujuana the tax revenue alone could balance the NYS budget


LOL! This is my favorite part about the marijuana debate. NYS is like the highest taxed state and yet no balanced budget. Taxes go up every year. Fee's go up every year. And yet no balanced budget. Always a deficit.

Possession under a certain amount in NYS is NOT a crime. Getting caught, which the chances are slim, one pays a civil penalty and one does NOT get a criminal record.

In the event there is legalization of marijuana, a person would not be allowed to grow 68 plants legally and possess illegal weapons and cocaine as well.

Legalizing marijuana isn't going to open up any prison space. The people in prison are serving time for either possession and/or distribution of a large quanity (which will still be illegal) and/or the violence associated with the nasty game of drug dealing. No one is sitting in prison because he had a joint.

The stats tell us the X amount of people in prison for drug dealing. What the stats don't tell us is which one of them took the plea deal, pled guilty to the possession charge and the gun charge or assault with a weapon charge was dismissed in full satisfaction.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:38 AM

More than $83,000 in cash from the house, a safety deposit box, and at least two bank accounts could now be seized.

Seems to me this man is now paying a tax on his business. The money can be seized and used by the sheriff's department. The equipment and training provided with the funds will be a savings for the taxpayers.

It's a win-win right?
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:51 AM

It's quite possible that legalization would permit growing a certain number of plants for personal use, as did Alaska's legalization law.

Just a few large plants could certainly put one in jail under current NY law.

"What the stats don't tell us is which one of them took the plea deal, pled guilty to the possession charge and the gun charge or assault with a weapon charge was dismissed in full satisfaction."

I think about 95% take a plea to the most serious charge. It says something about our societal values when assault or weapons charges are considered more serious than is using something that can't hurt anyone else.
Posted by: L EE

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:55 AM

Just curious. What happens to this money. Does the grower get any, or all back ? Does the county get to keep it ? Is it used toward his bail ?????? questions, questions...
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
It's quite possible that legalization would permit growing a certain number of plants for personal use, as did Alaska's legalization law.


It's hard to say what would be permitted. Alcohol is illegal to have in some Alaskan villages.


Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I think about 95% take a plea to the most serious charge. It says something about our societal values when assault or weapons charges are considered more serious than is using something that can't hurt anyone else.


I am not so sure that 95% are pleading to the more serious charge.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:03 AM

It'll be seized and split among the arresting agencies. This is one of the main things driving the drug war. The drug war is very profitable for government, when you consider seizure, plus the corrections industry, the enforcement industry, forced counseling and rehab, etc., etc., etc..

Also, the pharm industry is against legalization; as long as cannabis, which is not parentable, is illegal, they can sell more deadly and dangerous, but legal, patented, and very expensive, psychotropic drugs like antdepressants, SSRIs, etc. Those things comprise the real drug epidemic in this country.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:09 AM

In many cases, I think you're right, but I think it's common practice to lay on as many charges as possible, in order to offer a plea that the less serious ones may be dropped, in exchange for a guilty plea to the big one.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:16 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
In many cases, I think you're right, but I think it's common practice to lay on as many charges as possible, in order to offer a plea that the less serious ones may be dropped, in exchange for a guilty plea to the big one.



The plea is given in full satisfaction of all the charges. Often times the sentence received is higher than what that charge pled to carries but lower than what the maximum would be if the person pled to or found guilty of the highest charge.
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
every single person on here should probably get a damn life, rather than talking on here for DAYS about something that you all have probably done be4. whether he was busted or not, there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY. SO...instead of focusing on THIS topic, go to the damn store, get some more food, & sit on your computer and talk about other things rather than JUST this..or here's a thought, get a damn job and go buy a life. i'm out, peace<3
Ahahahahaha...Okay MOM, I have a life and a job...now what? Can I get stoned and talk about how someone got busted for growing pot or should I set in the corner and wait for you to spank me?
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: HarleyBobT
Originally Posted By: Your Mom
every single person on here should probably get a damn life, rather than talking on here for DAYS about something that you all have probably done be4. whether he was busted or not, there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY. SO...instead of focusing on THIS topic, go to the damn store, get some more food, & sit on your computer and talk about other things rather than JUST this..or here's a thought, get a damn job and go buy a life. i'm out, peace<3
Ahahahahaha...Okay MOM, I have a life and a job...now what? Can I get stoned and talk about how someone got busted for growing pot or should I set in the corner and wait for you to spank me?


I wouldn't challenge her, HBT. I remember hearing once that "Your Mom" wears combat boots. A spanking could be harmful!
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
every single person on here should probably get a damn life, rather than talking on here for DAYS about something that you all have probably done be4. whether he was busted or not, there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY. SO...instead of focusing on THIS topic, go to the damn store, get some more food, & sit on your computer and talk about other things rather than JUST this..or here's a thought, get a damn job and go buy a life. i'm out, peace<3


I think it's pretty obvious that several posters on here are being upfront about their stance against a weed being illegal. If there were "thousands of millions" of people in NY selling pot, it wouldn't be so expensive, I wouldn't think.

I didn't see any post that insulted the man arrested. In fact, I saw more supporting him, if you will, rather than disparaging him.

Your anger is misdirected.
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:47 AM

Ahahahahha... I was always in trouble for testing the limits.
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:48 AM

Originally Posted By: HarleyBobT
Ahahahahha... I was always in trouble for testing the limits.


Oh, I'm sure you jest ;\)
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 10:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Kitty
Originally Posted By: HarleyBobT
Ahahahahha... I was always in trouble for testing the limits.


Oh, I'm sure you jest ;\)

I thought it was normal to have a red butt when I was a kid ...ahahahahaha
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 12:12 PM

I am glad to see that Mike has some support on here. I know some of you are typically hyper-critical of anyone who doesn't think and act exactly like you do. However, we are in America, and freedom is something we all have a right to (as well as free speech).

Marijuana being illegal while cigarettes and alcohol are legal is ridiculous. And those who say Marijuana is illegal for very good reasons - I'd love to hear them.... Please - inform me of how it's bad... Or better yet - tell me how on God's GREEN Earth is it worse than alcohol or cigarettes?

It's illegal due to purely political reasons - end of story. Company's like DuPont are incredibly anti-hemp because a natural fiber that is better than any synthetic they could invent would prove a detriment to their corporation - and the Pharmaceutical companies half run Washington at this point. With big businesses pouring money into good-ol-boy government officials' pockets to keep marijuana illegal - it'll stay illegal.

And there are a lot of "criminals" in prison today for extremely long prison sentences, simply due to possession of marijuana. Millions of dollars are spent every year on law enforcement to simply take pot from people. Case in point - Mike O'Malley.
(inform yourself: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/)

I would also like to submit a question for those of you who think a cancer patient with a green thumb deserves to sit in jail with hardened criminals - I am intimately involved in a couple current cases between Seneca and Ontario Counties. Mike O'Malley was found to have some pot plants at his house - the judge gives him $40,000 Bail, $80,000 Bond. Tom Mitchell is awaiting trial for 15 felonies+ ranging from Kidnapping, Criminal use of a Firearm, Assault, 9 counts of Rape, Stalking, etc. and he was released on $25K bail or $25K bond.... Who is the worse criminal here? Who really causes more damage to society?

And by the way - yes I did say cancer patient: Mike O'Malley is 25 and just found out he had Testicular Cancer towards the end of 2009. He had a testicle removed 10 days before Christmas. He went to a doctor's appointment Friday morning in police custody to find out he has Stage 1 to Stage 2 Lymphoma. He's gearing up for major Chemo and most likely highly invasive surgery to remove all of his lymph nodes. And even still - his cancer will have a 40-50% chance of re-occurring - if they can even get it all in the first place. Good thing its legal for him to buy cigarettes instead of marijuana....
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 12:23 PM

To be clear, though, he did break the law, whether I agree with the law or not. Additionally, "Police also seized brass knuckles, a stun gun, cocaine and drugs,..."

This indicates further criminal intentions to me.

I'm truly sorry for his health problems. Nobody deserves that, particularly a 25 year old with a lot of life ahead.
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 12:27 PM

I'll be honest, I didn't even know that brass knuckles were illegal, ha ha ha. Also, I didn't see mention of firearms of any kind, so for me the "weapons" that were found....aren't really THAT bad in comparison to what most "hardend criminals" are toting these days.

On another note, I do like the support that is coming out for Mike. He has two rough roads in front of him now, and will need all the support he can get.
Posted by: exnyer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:00 PM

having a few plants and smoking pot is one thing, having that much is the "Get money attitude" its a way of life for some. That's why he is in trouble. That has nothing to do w/ a cancer patient and a little weed. As for terrapinie, There is no need to post anything about his PERSONAL medical condition. Please erase!

think about it... I want rooms full of weed and a bank roll but I can't, I don't want to go to jail.

To make things clear some of us support legal marijuana. Not someone with a "get money attitude"

make sense?
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:05 PM

While I can appreciate your relating the merits of cannibus and the acts of prohibition that have been and continue to be futile in relation to alcohol and tobacco, it does not excuse the fact that Mike was in possesion of more cannibus than his medical needs to administer for personal use. Couple that with the brass knuckles etc, we have a criminal situation. Comparisons of one criminal vs another is an exercise of wasted energy. Until the marijuana laws are changed, Mike is facing criminal charges, not for a small decriminalized amount, but nearly 40 thousand dollars worth, so the argument in any other context my have merit, in this case it simply does not.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:07 PM

Legalize the herb.
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Santa_Cruzer
Legalize the herb.

No don't legalize it, that makes to much sense to do something that.
Posted by: Roadtrip2nowhere

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:47 PM

Hey just a question here so don't go all rabid on me: if we "legalize the herb", then what's the next not so harmful drug everyone will want legal? Where does it stop? Again just a question!!!!
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 01:57 PM

Do you have evidence of other substances folks are clamoring to decriminalize or legalize besides cannabis?

I don't.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:05 PM

Originally Posted By: HarleyBobT
Originally Posted By: Santa_Cruzer
Legalize the herb.

No don't legalize it, that makes to much sense to do something that.


Sensi is a GOOD thing ;\)
Posted by: Roadtrip2nowhere

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Santa_Cruzer
Do you have evidence of other substances folks are clamoring to decriminalize or legalize besides cannabis?

I don't.


nope never claimed to have that info...was just asking a question!
I've no opinion one way or the other, never used it, makes no never mind to me...JUST A QUESTION!!!
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:19 PM

Glad I could help.
Posted by: Roadtrip2nowhere

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Santa_Cruzer
Glad I could help.


wasn't asking for help but am happy you're glad there Santa
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:26 PM

You posed a question. I responded.
Posted by: Roadtrip2nowhere

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:27 PM

Thank you very much
Posted by: Your Mom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:36 PM

the brass knuckles were possibly his. but the stun gun, cocaine & drugs were not however. i'm not his mom. but he is a relative of mine. i know what he did was wrong, but i still love him more than words could ever say. it is devastating seeing someone of my own blood go through the cancer, let alone have to do it with all the publicity.

to my earlier post, i wasn't saying anything against him, but most of you people get on here just to look @ these stupid forums like you haven't a life.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 02:50 PM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And by the way - yes I did say cancer patient: Mike O'Malley is 25 and just found out he had Testicular Cancer towards the end of 2009. He had a testicle removed 10 days before Christmas.



And how long has he been growing his pot?
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Santa_Cruzer
Legalize the herb.


Lock up the crook!
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:05 PM

I guess, for some it is easier for them to judge others, I know that I am not perfect, so I try not to. Try is the operative word there, because, like I said, I'm not perfect. It must be nice to have lead a perfect mistake free life....
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And by the way - yes I did say cancer patient: Mike O'Malley is 25 and just found out he had Testicular Cancer towards the end of 2009. He had a testicle removed 10 days before Christmas.



And how long has he been growing his pot?


Give me a break. He should have a prescription for the testicle cancer then, not a farm of crops.

Interesting Question #1 - Who owns the House?
Posted by: madnesscentral

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Z Genius Lusifer

Interesting Question #1 - Who owns the House?
The county does now.
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:35 PM

No they don't - who owned the house and was renting it out?
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:43 PM

What does that have to do with anything? Do you really need to know the name of the person who owned the house?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:54 PM

For whomever requested I not discuss Mike's medical issues, he's open with his medical issues - and obviously his medical issues will become a part of this whole case. I've talked to Mike, and he's fine with his condition being discussed.

He was not interested in other illegal activity - I honestly didn't even know brass knuckles were illegal - most grown adults I've talked to didn't. I've known lots of guys over the years who've had them just because - sitting in an old junk drawer or whatever. It's like your dad passing down his father's favorite brass ashtray or something. It's not like they were sitting on the end table to be used at a moment's notice. If he was really interested in further criminal behavior with the use of weapons - don't you think he would've had something a bit more protective than brass knuckles.... Seriously?

When the police say $40K worth of marijuana... Let's be honest here folks - when has law enforcement ever discovered a quantity of illegal drugs and actually had any kind of clue what the street value would actually yield.... Bigger numbers make bigger stories - sensationalism its called. Not to mention, all of the news articles & reports that have been released do not match, and all of them are inaccurate in at least one way or another. No offense to the local news outlets, but we're not working with CNN & the New York Times here in Central New York....

And for those unfamiliar with a new invention of the 20th century called the Freezer - it's great for storing food items and other perishables to keep them fresh for a duration of time. It also works for vegetation and would allow for someone, say, going through Chemotherapy, to be able to stay in bed and rest for a few months, instead of actively continuing to tend to a garden.... I'm just saying - what you'd like to assume is mal-intent and pure criminal behavior - might not always be what it looks like on the surface....
Posted by: grinch

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 03:57 PM

Some posters on here who are activists believing in the purity and medicinal use of Marijuana are ignoring some basic facts.



The substance has been outlawed for very good reasons which are outlined below, not because Dupont or the drug industry get rich because of its illegal use. The punishment for growing, sale, distribution and use of the product are well known and there is no excuse after the fact that is acceptable. Whether or not bail is higher or lower, or we should compare what this man did with some other criminal is neither here nor there. His health is a concern, but not an excuse. Neither is being related, or that we are not all perfect individuals. No, I nor anyone I know can claim to be perfect but I do obey the law.


It is a given he does not like being under arrest charged with a crime nor having others discuss what he did. He should have thought of that before doing what he is charged with.


My primary concern in all of this are the young people who read, listen to the adults and think it is great fun to wink at the law and to use such drugs. I have seen it, smelled it, never used it and have sat through countless lectures as to the ill effects of its use. There are no bonfires in my back yard to mask the smell of its use.

Here is an article that outlines some of the negative effects of marijuana.


"Although legalization activists and many marijuana users believe smoking pot has no negative effects, scientific research indicates that marijuana use can cause many different health problems.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. When smoked, it begins to effect users almost immediately and can last for one to three hours.

When it is eaten in food, such as baked in brownies and cookies, the effects take longer to begin, but usually last longer.

Short-Term Effects
The short-term effects of marijuana include:
Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)
Problems with memory and learning
Loss of coordination
Trouble with thinking and problem solving
Increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure
Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.

Effects on the Brain

The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.
When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

* Hallucinations
Delusions
Impaired memory
Disorientation
Effects on the Heart


Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.

Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana.

Effects on the Lungs


Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including:

Daily cough and phelm production
More frequent acute chest illnesses
Increased risk of lung infections
Obstructed airways


Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer.
One study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Many researchers believe than smoking marijuana is overall more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.


Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy
Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause:


to visual stimuli
Increased tremulousness
Problems with sustained attention and
Poor problem solving skills"
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
the brass knuckles were possibly his. but the stun gun, cocaine & drugs were not however. i'm not his mom. but he is a relative of mine. i know what he did was wrong, but i still love him more than words could ever say. it is devastating seeing someone of my own blood go through the cancer, let alone have to do it with all the publicity.

to my earlier post, i wasn't saying anything against him, but most of you people get on here just to look @ these stupid forums like you haven't a life.


No, the stun gun and cocaine certainly weren't his *sigh*

Either they were in in house, or on him, to be charged. If they were in somebody else's house, they would be charge too. I believe that's what Lusi is getting at, as well.

Mom, you just made this whole subject worse for him on this forum by registering just to come on here and get angry with the posters. You should have left it alone, since no one was degradng him anyway.
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
For whomever requested I not discuss Mike's medical issues, he's open with his medical issues - and obviously his medical issues will become a part of this whole case. I've talked to Mike, and he's fine with his condition being discussed.

He was not interested in other illegal activity - I honestly didn't even know brass knuckles were illegal - most grown adults I've talked to didn't. I've known lots of guys over the years who've had them just because - sitting in an old junk drawer or whatever. It's like your dad passing down his father's favorite brass ashtray or something. It's not like they were sitting on the end table to be used at a moment's notice. If he was really interested in further criminal behavior with the use of weapons - don't you think he would've had something a bit more protective than brass knuckles.... Seriously?

When the police say $40K worth of marijuana... Let's be honest here folks - when has law enforcement ever discovered a quantity of illegal drugs and actually had any kind of clue what the street value would actually yield.... Bigger numbers make bigger stories - sensationalism its called. Not to mention, all of the news articles & reports that have been released do not match, and all of them are inaccurate in at least one way or another. No offense to the local news outlets, but we're not working with CNN & the New York Times here in Central New York....

And for those unfamiliar with a new invention of the 20th century called the Freezer - it's great for storing food items and other perishables to keep them fresh for a duration of time. It also works for vegetation and would allow for someone, say, going through Chemotherapy, to be able to stay in bed and rest for a few months, instead of actively continuing to tend to a garden.... I'm just saying - what you'd like to assume is mal-intent and pure criminal behavior - might not always be what it looks like on the surface....


Who was he renting from?

Pharmacutical Marijuana does not mean putting in commercial fans and growing hundreds of pounds of weed in the Family Room.

Who was he renting from?
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 04:11 PM

Hey, I am going to have Gall Bladder surgery soon,

Maybe I will start a Peyote Farm in my Sunroom......
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Z Genius Lusifer
Hey, I am going to have Gall Bladder surgery soon,

Maybe I will start a Peyote Farm in my Sunroom......
Oh wow! Really man a peyote farm!?
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:16 PM

"For whomever requested I not discuss Mike's medical issues, he's open with his medical issues - and obviously his medical issues will become a part of this whole case."

Perhaps his attorney will attempt to make it part of the case, but, the fact of the matter is the timelines and the amounts will not constitute personal medical use.

He was not diagnosed until recently, for which I am truly sorry, however, the amounts being as large as they were and the operation of tending that much marijuana is still criminal in NY.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Z Genius Lusifer
No they don't - who owned the house and was renting it out?


2502 Lower Lake Road, Seneca Falls
Posted by: oops12

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:32 PM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Tom Mitchell is awaiting trial for 15 felonies+ ranging from Kidnapping, Criminal use of a Firearm, Assault, 9 counts of Rape, Stalking, etc. and he was released on $25K bail or $25K bond.... Who is the worse criminal here? Who really causes more damage to society?


Ok, honestly I haven't read this thread as of yet. This isn't Tom's first time either. I wish Mike well and hope he beats his cancer.

I wanna know how I can get my hands on one of those stunguns though! Ohh, the fun I would have!
Posted by: wanabe

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Senecamom
Originally Posted By: Z Genius Lusifer
No they don't - who owned the house and was renting it out?


2502 Lower Lake Road, Seneca Falls


is owned by

Anna Maria Vestal,
425 Thor St
White Sands Missile Range NM 88002
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:42 PM

He was not diagnosed until recently, for which I am truly sorry, however, the amounts being as large as they were and the operation of tending that much marijuana is still criminal in NY.


Maybe he got the plants already grown at the Super WalMart once he heard of his testicle cancer. Seems like he might try that one in court too....it is just as prepostorious...
Posted by: oops12

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 05:55 PM

Yes, I know it's illegal and it's a huge amount. I don't know him very well, but I don't remembered him as being an ass. There are people out there that do much worse and are walking around. It is what it is. He knew it was illegal and he did it anyway. He's gonna face the consequences. I know him having cancer doesn't make it legal. I just hope he beats it and gets well, as I do with anyone who faces that.

I still want a stun gun \:\)
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 06:35 PM

Seriously, why do you care so much about WHO he was renting from, does it really matter? If you are trying to make the point that it wasn't his house and therefore had no right doing it there, point made. I don't think the landlord needs to have their name posted on here just cause YOU want to know it.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:26 PM

Hopfully a long time.

America needs experienced growers.


Pass it on.
Posted by: HarleyBobT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:28 PM

Originally Posted By: oops12
Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Tom Mitchell is awaiting trial for 15 felonies+ ranging from Kidnapping, Criminal use of a Firearm, Assault, 9 counts of Rape, Stalking, etc. and he was released on $25K bail or $25K bond.... Who is the worse criminal here? Who really causes more damage to society?


Ok, honestly I haven't read this thread as of yet. This isn't Tom's first time either. I wish Mike well and hope he beats his cancer.

I wanna know how I can get my hands on one of those stunguns though! Ohh, the fun I would have!
Go south for a stun gun.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 07:31 PM

Another source. http://www.actionstunguns.com/
Posted by: Unique

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:05 PM

Your Mom is...His Mom

They say "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"
Posted by: american girl

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:30 PM

"more arrests are pending", why would they say that if he was only using it for himself medically? He was operating a business, give us a break!
(not directed at unique, just replying to last post on here)
Posted by: queenbee

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
the brass knuckles were possibly his. but the stun gun, cocaine & drugs were not however. i'm not his mom. but he is a relative of mine. i know what he did was wrong, but i still love him more than words could ever say. it is devastating seeing someone of my own blood go through the cancer, let alone have to do it with all the publicity.

to my earlier post, i wasn't saying anything against him, but most of you people get on here just to look @ these stupid forums like you haven't a life.


And u felt compelled to "look at these stupid forums" and comment for why? U could have kept ur mouth shut, most of us here think it should be legalized and maybe felt some empathy. U turned this thread into a free for all. He was selling lady face the facts, 7lbs. bagged and ready for resale plus 68 plants all for personal use? I don't see that sliding by.
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 08:52 PM

maybe it wasn't his, maybe he was growing it for someone else......
Posted by: queenbee

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 09:02 PM

OH ok, I'm sure the judge will understand that.. LOL.
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: grinch
Some posters on here who are activists believing in the purity and medicinal use of Marijuana are ignoring some basic facts.



The substance has been outlawed for very good reasons which are outlined below, not because Dupont or the drug industry get rich because of its illegal use. The punishment for growing, sale, distribution and use of the product are well known and there is no excuse after the fact that is acceptable. Whether or not bail is higher or lower, or we should compare what this man did with some other criminal is neither here nor there. His health is a concern, but not an excuse. Neither is being related, or that we are not all perfect individuals. No, I nor anyone I know can claim to be perfect but I do obey the law.


It is a given he does not like being under arrest charged with a crime nor having others discuss what he did. He should have thought of that before doing what he is charged with.


My primary concern in all of this are the young people who read, listen to the adults and think it is great fun to wink at the law and to use such drugs. I have seen it, smelled it, never used it and have sat through countless lectures as to the ill effects of its use. There are no bonfires in my back yard to mask the smell of its use.

Here is an article that outlines some of the negative effects of marijuana.


"Although legalization activists and many marijuana users believe smoking pot has no negative effects, scientific research indicates that marijuana use can cause many different health problems.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. When smoked, it begins to effect users almost immediately and can last for one to three hours.

When it is eaten in food, such as baked in brownies and cookies, the effects take longer to begin, but usually last longer.

Short-Term Effects
The short-term effects of marijuana include:
Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch)
Problems with memory and learning
Loss of coordination
Trouble with thinking and problem solving
Increased heart rate and reduced blood pressure
Sometimes marijuana use can also produce anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic.

Effects on the Brain

The active ingredient in marijuana, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, acts on cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors, but other areas of the brain have few or none at all. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.
When high doses of marijuana are used, usually when eaten in food rather than smoked, users can experience the following symptoms:

* Hallucinations
Delusions
Impaired memory
Disorientation
Effects on the Heart


Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure drops. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute, and can increase even more if other drugs are used at the same time.

Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana.

Effects on the Lungs


Smoking marijuana, even infrequently, can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, and cause heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers do, including:

Daily cough and phelm production
More frequent acute chest illnesses
Increased risk of lung infections
Obstructed airways


Marijuana contains more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke and because marijuana smokers usually inhale deeper and hold the smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers, their lungs are exposed to those carcinogenic properties longer.
One study found that marijuana smokers were three times more likely to develop cancer of the head or neck than non-smokers. Many researchers believe than smoking marijuana is overall more harmful to the lungs than smoking tobacco.


Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.


Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy
Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause:


to visual stimuli
Increased tremulousness
Problems with sustained attention and
Poor problem solving skills"



LOL look up cigarettes and alcohol you will find the same warnings LOL ...yet cigarettes and alcohol are LEGAL and TAXED HHHMMmmmmmm


* Hallucinations
Delusions
Impaired memory
Disorientation


YES PLEASE!!! ;\)
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/11/10 11:49 PM

There are gift shops on every corner in Myrtle Beach that sell stun guns and brass knuckles
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 01:27 AM

"To make things clear some of us support legal marijuana. Not someone with a "get money attitude"

make sense?"

No, it makes no sense. What's wrong with money?
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 01:38 AM

I love money! but I would never put myself in risk of getting caught selling or growing it.
Posted by: *Sparkey*

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 02:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Your Mom
every single person on here should probably get a damn life, rather than talking on here for DAYS about something that you all have probably done be4. whether he was busted or not, there are still thousands of millions of people in NEW YORK who grow, sell, & smoke marijuana ILLEGALLY. SO...instead of focusing on THIS topic, go to the damn store, get some more food, & sit on your computer and talk about other things rather than JUST this..or here's a thought, get a damn job and go buy a life. i'm out, peace<3


I doubt any of us that sit around and read FL1 cause we have nothing better to do had a set up quite like this dude had. THIS is small town USA and untill something else BIG happens around here this arrest will stay the topic of conversation.Many of us are lucky enough to be able to read and post from our JOBS..I work 12 hours a day/6days a week and I am one of those people.Do you think whomever the cocaine belonged to will come forward to help this dude out?
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 06:31 AM

N.J. DID IT WHY CAN'T WE!!!

New Jersey Lawmakers Pass Medical Marijuana Bill

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: January 11, 2010

TRENTON — The New Jersey Legislature approved a measure on Monday that would make the state the 14th in the nation, but one of the few on the East Coast, to legalize the use of marijuana to help patients with chronic illnesses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/nyregion/12marijuana.html?hp
Posted by: bluezone

Re: Another "retired" farmer *DELETED* - 01/12/10 07:16 AM

Post deleted by FL1 Mod 2
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Scottie2Hottie

LOL look up cigarettes and alcohol you will find the same warnings LOL ...yet cigarettes and alcohol are LEGAL and TAXED HHHMMmmmmmm


* Hallucinations
Delusions
Impaired memory
Disorientation


YES PLEASE!!! ;\)


Scottie - that's exactly what I thought when I read that.... I actually believe my question didn't just say 'please tell me what's bad about marijuana' - but more importantly "tell me how it's worse than alcohol or cigarettes...." Grinch simply told us the same hype any anti-marijuana voicebox does - regurgitated garbage. Marijuana is less detrimental to health and society than either Cigarettes or Alcohol....
Posted by: Scottie2Hottie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 08:54 AM

THIS IS NOT AN INDIAN THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!


LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY!
MOD2.
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:01 AM

Originally Posted By: oops12
Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Tom Mitchell is awaiting trial for 15 felonies+ ranging from Kidnapping, Criminal use of a Firearm, Assault, 9 counts of Rape, Stalking, etc. and he was released on $25K bail or $25K bond.... Who is the worse criminal here? Who really causes more damage to society?


Ok, honestly I haven't read this thread as of yet. This isn't Tom's first time either. I wish Mike well and hope he beats his cancer.


Thank you Oops - for further supporting how bizarre the legal system is when it comes to drug offenses. Why should Mike's bail be almost double, as a first time offender, and a much lesser crime (qty 1 Class C Felony) - than a rapist who's been previously arrested for similar offenses - and who's charges are far more heinous (qty 6 Class B Felonies - four of which are Rape in the 1st degree.....)?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Unique
Your Mom is...His Mom

They say "Those who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones"


I'm sorry - but you're very mistaken.... Do you honestly think a grown adult would first, pick a name like "your mom"... And Second - would act in the manner Your Mom has? Much less the mother of the accused....? Seriously, re-read Your Mom's posts - it's not his mother.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:42 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
I am glad to see that Mike has some support on here. I know some of you are typically hyper-critical of anyone who doesn't think and act exactly like you do. However, we are in America, and freedom is something we all have a right to (as well as free speech).


We don't have the freedom to do what's illegal.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And those who say Marijuana is illegal for very good reasons - I'd love to hear them.... Please - inform me of how it's bad...


How about the violence associated with drug dealing? I am not talking about Beavis and Butthead sitting around toking on a joint in their parents basement. I am talking about the violence associated with dealing. Weed dealers sell more than just weed. They fight for territory and they fight with rival dealers.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
and the Pharmaceutical companies half run Washington at this point. With big businesses pouring money into good-ol-boy government officials' pockets to keep marijuana illegal - it'll stay illegal.


Nice try. If it was legalized then the pharmaceutical companies would be the first to be given the right to produce and sell marijuana.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And there are a lot of "criminals" in prison today for extremely long prison sentences, simply due to possession of marijuana. Millions of dollars are spent every year on law enforcement to simply take pot from people. Case in point - Mike O'Malley.



These criminals are not in prison simply because of marijuana possession. No one and I repeat no one is doing prison time because they possessed a little marijuana. They are in prison because they are drug dealers. These criminals have lenghty criminal records which also adds to their sentence. A criminal with 2 strikes get's caught with a felony amount of marijuana is looking at a 3rd strike and a higher sentence.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
I would also like to submit a question for those of you who think a cancer patient with a green thumb deserves to sit in jail with hardened criminals -



I am sorry to hear he as cancer. But he is in jail because of what he did. It's not society's fault, it's not the pharmaceutical companies fault.

I would be asking what lead the police to this house. Was it because this guy occassionaly enjoys a joint in his livingroom? The answer would be no. I would guess law enforcement has been on this for quite sometime. Law enforcement even pulled off the raid at the right time catching him with the stash and cash.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:51 AM

If marijuana is legalized that means it will be sold by companies for a profit.

Will be dopers who complain about not having enough money to make ends meet but still have money to throw away for marijuana be able to afford marijuana if it's legalized?

For those dopers who complain about the ever increasing tax on alcohol and cigarettes, will they not complain when the price of marijuana goes up because of the tax increase imposed on it?
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:57 AM

Let's not give too much creidt for the cops getting there at the right time, past knowledge of the Seneca County Cops and their abilities don't exactly impress me. Even a broken clock is right twice a day....

And as for people or "dopers" as you call them, complaining about the taxes....I'm pretty sure that statement can be made by many non-dopers about many things. And I'm sure that there are no "boozers" that skip a bill payment for their case of beer...nope, the only people in the world that would do that are "dopers." Ignorance must be bliss for you.
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 09:58 AM

Of course they will find a way to afford it. Tell me you have never seen a woman with two packs of cigarettes in her purse complaining about how she will feed her kids?
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:00 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Originally Posted By: oops12
Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Tom Mitchell is awaiting trial for 15 felonies+ ranging from Kidnapping, Criminal use of a Firearm, Assault, 9 counts of Rape, Stalking, etc. and he was released on $25K bail or $25K bond.... Who is the worse criminal here? Who really causes more damage to society?


Ok, honestly I haven't read this thread as of yet. This isn't Tom's first time either. I wish Mike well and hope he beats his cancer.


Thank you Oops - for further supporting how bizarre the legal system is when it comes to drug offenses. Why should Mike's bail be almost double, as a first time offender, and a much lesser crime (qty 1 Class C Felony) - than a rapist who's been previously arrested for similar offenses - and who's charges are far more heinous (qty 6 Class B Felonies - four of which are Rape in the 1st degree.....)?


As VM pointed out, MONEY! That's why. They get the house, the cars and trucks, all the toys and all the MONEY. They will trash your child's life forever and say oh well, they should have known better. And It won't get any better until we fight to make it better. They are raping and plundering at will. Well..... maybe not rape but It isn't far off.

Decriminalize it! Let everyone grow their own and they won't need a dealer that sells hard drugs and fights for his turf.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:04 AM

Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
Let's not give too much creidt for the cops getting there at the right time, past knowledge of the Seneca County Cops and their abilities don't exactly impress me. Even a broken clock is right twice a day....


I give credit when credit is due. And they deserve the credit on this one.


Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
Ignorance must be bliss for you.



No ignorance here. I think the ignorance is with those who think legalizing marijuana for the sake of taxing it is a good thing.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:06 AM

Originally Posted By: american girl
"more arrests are pending", why would they say that if he was only using it for himself medically? He was operating a business, give us a break!
(not directed at unique, just replying to last post on here)


They always say that. Makes it look like they are on the job. What they are saying is we really got this guy and he is going to roll over.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Badge420
They always say that. Makes it look like they are on the job. What they are saying is we really got this guy and he is going to roll over.



I was wondering if he will cut a deal and name names.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456

No ignorance here. I think the ignorance is with those who think legalizing marijuana for the sake of taxing it is a good thing.


I agree.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456
Originally Posted By: Badge420
They always say that. Makes it look like they are on the job. What they are saying is we really got this guy and he is going to roll over.



I was wondering if he will cut a deal and name names.


Thats what they are counting on.
Posted by: oops12

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:12 AM

Me to and then go after the ones who are selling the hard drugs. I don't think I've ever read or heard of anyone overdosing on pot.
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
and the Pharmaceutical companies half run Washington at this point. With big businesses pouring money into good-ol-boy government officials' pockets to keep marijuana illegal - it'll stay illegal.


Nice try. If it was legalized then the pharmaceutical companies would be the first to be given the right to produce and sell marijuana.


Pharmaceutical Companies want to keep selling their super high priced pills. Pills can't be grown in basements across America. No one is in their kitchen cooking up Vicodin or Oxycontin. The Pharmaceutical companies are not going to be the ones making money on the legalization of marijuana. That's just ridiculous to think that....


Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And there are a lot of "criminals" in prison today for extremely long prison sentences, simply due to possession of marijuana. Millions of dollars are spent every year on law enforcement to simply take pot from people. Case in point - Mike O'Malley.


These criminals are not in prison simply because of marijuana possession. No one and I repeat no one is doing prison time because they possessed a little marijuana. They are in prison because they are drug dealers. These criminals have lenghty criminal records which also adds to their sentence. A criminal with 2 strikes get's caught with a felony amount of marijuana is looking at a 3rd strike and a higher sentence.


Wow - you really should do some research Taxpayer... There are thousands of people incarcerated all over America on simple possession charges. That's what Mike O'Malley is charged with right now. If he was supposedly running some giant drug ring out of his house - why wasn't he charged with Distribution? Why wasn't he charged with Sale? Why wasn't he even charged with the Intent to Distribute?

One phenomenon you should look into is the increasing number of women and 'accessory' people involved who end up doing the most time. A lot of dealers involved in the game will plead for lesser sentences. They will provide information to law enforcement to get someone else in trouble, turn up more drugs or money, etc. to reduce their sentences. The wives, girlfriends, roommates, etc. of some of these people get charged in the whole conspiracy just for answering a phone and taking a message, or stopping by a friend's house on the way out to dinner. These 'accessory' people may have NO CLUE what's going on. Because of that - they have no information to provide to law enforcement for a reduced sentence.
It is a well-known fact that there are many incredibly stiff minimum sentence laws for drugs charges. And they leave little to no wiggle room for interpretation of the law, or determining the real culpability in the situation - all are equally guilty regardless of the involvement.

Here's some facts that might help....
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/69
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/mandatorymin/

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
I would also like to submit a question for those of you who think a cancer patient with a green thumb deserves to sit in jail with hardened criminals -


I am sorry to hear he as cancer. But he is in jail because of what he did. It's not society's fault, it's not the pharmaceutical companies fault.

I would be asking what lead the police to this house. Was it because this guy occassionaly enjoys a joint in his livingroom? The answer would be no. I would guess law enforcement has been on this for quite sometime. Law enforcement even pulled off the raid at the right time catching him with the stash and cash.


First, Mike is not in jail currently. And there is innocence before being proven guilty in the US. So, before Mike gets blamed for everything - as I, nor anyone else has even said that everything found in that house was even his, lets remember we do have a judicial process.

Second, law enforcement went to his house because some other kid decided to get himself out of DWI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident by implicating others in wrong doings. Search online news - did anyone hear of a kid wrecking his car in downtown Waterloo and running home from the accident, only to have his mother make him turn himself in? Nope. And why? Because the cops didn't charge him with a single thing. Personally - I care more about the drunk kid driving down Virginia St. who might run me over while I'm smart enough to not drive home from the bar, than I care about someone exercising their green thumb in their house. Yes, growing marijuana is illegal. But again, I have yet to see ANYONE provide me information demonstrating why marijuana itself needs to be illegal....

Some of you folks say it's because of the violence of the drug game and because pot dealers never just sell pot. WRONG. Most potheads I know are the most anti-violent people you'll ever meet. Most people I know who have ever sold marijuana in their lives, only sold marijuana.... And to talk about turf wars... Are we in Compton? This is Waterloo and Seneca Falls we're talking about... There is no 'turf'. They don't fight for territory or fight rival dealers. These aren't guys standing on a corner with a giant black jacket with dime bags in their pockets, literally fighting to keep their post on that corner. I'm sorry to inform you this Taxpayer - but I'd have to venture the guess that probably 95% of drug dealers in our local communities - yes, there are many out there... and wow would you look how violent our streets are.... - anyways - they are just a few friends smoking a joint in a living room. Or - they are your favorite 20-something yr old pizza delivery boy - because delivering pizzas is his guise for stopping at 'clients' houses to drop off an eighth of weed. And those 'clients' - all friends of that person.
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:43 AM

Terra, it is so easy to sit an play the blame game. Nobody got him into this situation but himself. All the acts of all the criminals in the world does not justify nor minimize what he did. Until people start taking responsibility for their stupid acts, the world is going to continue to spiral downward.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Greymane
Terra, it is so easy to sit an play the blame game. Nobody got him into this situation but himself. All the acts of all the criminals in the world does not justify nor minimize what he did. Until people start taking responsibility for their stupid acts, the world is going to continue to spiral downward.


Even if that is how the game is played?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:50 AM

I'm not saying having a crop of plants in a basement is justified, nor should someone who is found in it's possession not have to pay their supposed debt to society.

The question was posed if he wasn't involved in some major drug dealing operation, why did they go to his house. Some other kid setting him up is why they went to his house.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:54 AM

Originally Posted By: oops12
Me to and then go after the ones who are selling the hard drugs. I don't think I've ever read or heard of anyone overdosing on pot.


A cop did once. called 911. HA HA HA HA

Cop over doses on pot brownies.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 11:05 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Pharmaceutical Companies want to keep selling their super high priced pills. Pills can't be grown in basements across America. No one is in their kitchen cooking up Vicodin or Oxycontin. The Pharmaceutical companies are not going to be the ones making money on the legalization of marijuana. That's just ridiculous to think that....



Why are those pills super high priced? Because of the for-profit corporations. If marijuana is legalized there will be government imposed sanctions on who can grow and distribute just like the sanctions placed on pharmaceutical companies.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
There are thousands of people incarcerated all over America on simple possession charges. That's what Mike O'Malley is charged with right now. If he was supposedly running some giant drug ring out of his house - why wasn't he charged with Distribution? Why wasn't he charged with Sale? Why wasn't he even charged with the Intent to Distribute?


Mr. O'Malley isn't charged with simple possession. Simple possession in NYS is NOT a crime. He is charged with a felony. A FELONY.

He is not charged with intent to distribute because in NYS marijuana is NOT a controlled subtance. NYS law defines the intent to sell as the intent to sell a controlled substance.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
One phenomenon you should look into is the increasing number of women and 'accessory' people involved who end up doing the most time.


It's not really a phenomenon. It's a game. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Don't do the crime if you don't want to do the time.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
nor anyone else has even said that everything found in that house was even his, lets remember we do have a judicial process.



LOL! The 'it's not mine' is an all time classic. The charge is possession of, not ownership of.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Second, law enforcement went to his house because some other kid decided to get himself out of DWI and Leaving the Scene of an Accident by implicating others in wrong doings. Search online news - did anyone hear of a kid wrecking his car in downtown Waterloo and running home from the accident, only to have his mother make him turn himself in? Nope. And why? Because the cops didn't charge him with a single thing.


If that is true it just goes to show you that there is no honor amongst criminals. It further shows that everyone has a price.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
But again, I have yet to see ANYONE provide me information demonstrating why marijuana itself needs to be illegal....


Same holds true as to why it should be legal. Do you really think if it's legalized that there will be absolutely no restrictions in place? That people can possess as much as they want and sell as much as they want? You can't really believe that because you seem reasonably intelligent.

If your only argument to legalize it is because alcohol and cigarettes are legal then you need to find a better lecture.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Some of you folks say it's because of the violence of the drug game and because pot dealers never just sell pot. WRONG.


Except this guy also had cocaine.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Most potheads I know are the most anti-violent people you'll ever meet. Most people I know who have ever sold marijuana in their lives, only sold marijuana.... And to talk about turf wars... Are we in Compton? This is Waterloo and Seneca Falls we're talking about... There is no 'turf'. They don't fight for territory or fight rival dealers. These aren't guys standing on a corner with a giant black jacket with dime bags in their pockets, literally fighting to keep their post on that corner. I'm sorry to inform you this Taxpayer - but I'd have to venture the guess that probably 95% of drug dealers in our local communities - yes, there are many out there... and wow would you look how violent our streets are.... - anyways - they are just a few friends smoking a joint in a living room. Or - they are your favorite 20-something yr old pizza delivery boy - because delivering pizzas is his guise for stopping at 'clients' houses to drop off an eighth of weed. And those 'clients' - all friends of that person.



The violence is all around us and much of it is linked to drugs. Maybe we don't have the street crime you indicated is because being a small community where people know other people's business allows law enforcement to focus on what some perceive to be the small stuff.

The common denominator for crime is drugs. Legalizing drugs of any kind will not stop the crime.

There is no Constitutional Amendment that allows someone to exercise their right to having a green thumb by growing marijuana.

Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 11:31 AM

I heard that call, very funny!
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 11:38 AM

At the end of the day, what is done, is done. I would just like to point out that Mike is not, and has not been charged with, being a violent person. Nor has he had, as far a I know, any prior arrests for this type of conduct, so I think your comment about all drug dealers having "lenghty criminal records" is a bit judgemental. Grouping people into a subset and using the terms "all" or "these people" could be considered a bias, let's hope that he has a jury that is a little less biased so that the justice system can work. No one on here, either for or against him or the situation, can really judge until they have all the facts. Bottom line, do you really think that the legalization of marijuana is going to be resovled on the Seneca County forums, I doubt it.
Posted by: Josephus

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456

No ignorance here. I think the ignorance is with those who think legalizing marijuana for the sake of taxing it is a good thing.

How much revenue can realy be gained for a product people can grow just about anywhere? There is a reason it's called "weed." You'd have to legislate the growing of marijuana. Good luck with that. It's worked so well, up until now...
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
At the end of the day, what is done, is done. I would just like to point out that Mike is not, and has not been charged with, being a violent person. Nor has he had, as far a I know, any prior arrests for this type of conduct, so I think your comment about all drug dealers having "lenghty criminal records" is a bit judgemental. Grouping people into a subset and using the terms "all" or "these people" could be considered a bias, let's hope that he has a jury that is a little less biased so that the justice system can work. No one on here, either for or against him or the situation, can really judge until they have all the facts. Bottom line, do you really think that the legalization of marijuana is going to be resovled on the Seneca County forums, I doubt it.



I didn't mean Mr. O'Malley has a lenghty criminal record. The people doing time in prison for marijuana possession are not first time offenders who were caught smoking one joint in their livingroom. Nor is it the college kid who smokes weed in his dorm room or the working stiff who occassionally enjoys a joint now and then after a hard days work.

No, I don't think the matter of legalization will be solved at all anytime within the next decade.

The reason being is because the government can't control it effectively without more laws and more enforcement.

As things are now with the government wanting to force health care on us, forcing more taxes and fee's upon us, I don't see why anyone would want the government to even attempt to legalize marijuana and control it. Unless someone is dillusional enough to believe that legalization means there would be absolutely no enforcement of any kind and one can grow, sell and possess as much as he/she wants to. Which I think some people truly believe.
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:27 PM

I think that people do expect that it will be regulated; I doubt anyone realistically thinks that the government would allow anything like that to go tax free. But I think that considerations should be made for medicinal use, many studies have shown that it does help certain conditions. And those considerations shouldn't get pushed to the wayside because some people don't like "dopers." Obviously many people will have their own agendas for why it should be decriminalized, legalized, or just legalized for medicinal use. But I feel that each side should have their chance to voice their opinions, and not disregard the notion just because you think everyone wants to get stoned.

I happen to have a condition that studies have shown would be helped with medicinal use of marijuana, but alas, I suffer because it is not available here. I choose not to buy it illegally because I have too much to risk in getting caught. But the day it is made legal, I'll be in the line at the "pharmacy" to fill my Rx. \:\)
Posted by: Madka Owdiseez

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:31 PM

People almost never get caught the first time they break the law.
Posted by: Ahhchoo

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:31 PM

A jury less bias in Seneca County? Good Luck with that one. Dont you know this forum is the jury? If these people say your guilty then the hanging has begun.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:33 PM

For medicinal use studies have shown marijuana does help. I personally would be all for that. If it helps relieve the pain or halt the progress of the sickness then it should be made available for medicinal use.

However, the downside to legalized medicinal use would be the cost. Rest assured for-profit pharmaceutical companies would get the politicians to open the market up to them and that dime bag won't cost you that dime at the pharmacy.
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:34 PM

Oh that's right! I forgot, thanks for the reminder! \:\)
Posted by: Greymane

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Ahhchoo
A jury less bias in Seneca County? Good Luck with that one. Dont you know this forum is the jury? If these people say your guilty then the hanging has begun.


That is true, but I am good for another 5+ years for jury duty, so no worries that I will be there.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 12:54 PM

There is also nothing in the Constitution that entitles Congress to control whether citizens use and grow, so the power to regulate that is reserved to the states, or to the people:

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

IOW, I believe that the states have the power to legalize or prohibit pot, as they see fit, but the federal law is predicated on the Commerce Clause, and in many cases, that's such a stretch as to be unconstitutional.

If one is growing or using pot for use solely within a state, and not engaging in interstate commerce in any way, then it is unconstitutional for the federal government to prohibit such activity.

Of course, Congress ignores the Constitution at will, which is the country's biggest problem, and that is what makes the federal government illigitimate.
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 01:16 PM

Who did someone say he rented from?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 01:41 PM

Good call VM. It is left up to the states to decide their individual stance on marijuana. And California already has medicinal marijuana legalized, and licences to grow in your home/on your property. Yes, it's regulated and it's not just a free for all. But the notion that it's going to be under the control of Pharmaceutical companies is non-sense. It's not going to be. People can easily grow it themselves, and that alone makes it very hard to regulate. If NYS ever sees legalized marijuana, medicinal or not - it will be regulated who can grow - and there will be regulations on who can sell it and buy it. But if you think Pfizer is going to set up production facilities to grow, package, and distribute marijuana to try to get the corner on the market.... try again.

Partially, the fact that pharmaceutical companies are national and international companies somewhat makes it so they can't do that. States regulate their marijuana laws. So,a pharmaceutical company would need to be wholly located within the boundaries of one state that allows marijuana growth, and that pharmaceutical company can only ship to stores within that state (crossing state lines is trafficking remember.....).

Taxpayer - Michael O'Malley is charged with simple POSSESSION. Yes, in NYS, marijuana is decriminalized, up to 25 grams. Even though his possession charge is a felony - it's still just "1st degree criminal possession of marijuana". It's NYS Penal Code number 221.30. It's a Non-violent Class C Felony with a minimum sentence of No Jail Time/Probation possible, and a max of 5-15 yrs, with no prior felonies.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 03:42 PM

New Jersey has seen the light!

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/147945

Support local cannabis farmers.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 04:32 PM

"But the notion that it's going to be under the control of Pharmaceutical companies is non-sense."

I didn't say it was going to be; I said that pharm companies are against legalization because they can't patent it, and if others were allowed to grow it, it would cut their own sales of antidepressants, etc..

"And California already has medicinal marijuana legalized,"

That's true, and it is one of 14 states that have legalized medical pot.
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 08:49 PM

VM - I wasn't referring to your quote about Pharm companies - sorry for the confusion. That was directed towards Taxpayer who believes the Pharm companies will somehow be the ones growing, packaging, and distributing marijuana if and when it is legalized.

I more rather agree with most that you've said.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:42 PM

"the Pharm companies will somehow be the ones growing, packaging, and distributing marijuana if and when it is legalized."

Anything's possible, but I think you're right.
Posted by: Ahhchoo

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 10:51 PM

Not if the goverment has anything to do with it! They want their cut too!
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/12/10 11:03 PM

There are a lot of ways the government can get their cut. Here's one model propased in California:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A bill seeking to legalize marijuana in California won initial approval from a legislative committee Tuesday in what may be a purely symbolic vote because a second committee likely won't take it up in time.

The state Assembly's public safety committee voted 4-3 on the measure that would tax and regulate marijuana in the same way alcohol is controlled.

But the health committee also must approve the measure by Friday before the full Assembly can consider it, an unlikely scenario.

The health committee is not considering the bill during its meeting Tuesday. And the bill's backers would have to get a special waiver to reconvene the health committee later this week.

If the bill does die, a spokesman for the bill's author, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, said the San Francisco Democrat would hold off on reintroducing legislation until after the November election, which could feature a marijuana legalization ballot proposition.

Though the successful committee vote could end up being purely symbolic, pot advocates hailed it as an important step forward.

''We're thrilled,'' said Stephen Gutwillig of the Drug Policy Alliance, a pro-legalization group. ''This to me, this is the formal beginning of the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States.''

The legislation would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana. The state would charge a $50-per-ounce fee and a 9 percent tax on retail sales.

State tax collectors have estimated the bill could bring in nearly $1.4 billion in revenue.

Under the bill, much of that money would go to fund drug abuse education and prevention programs. Republican Assemblyman Danny Gilmore ridiculed that idea during the hearing at the state Capitol.

''We're going to legalize marijuana, we're going to tax it, and then we're going to educate our kids about the harms of drugs?'' said Gilmore, a 31-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol. ''You've got to be kidding me.''

If the legislation fails to arrive on the Assembly floor this year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will likely not be forced to take a stand on marijuana legalization before he is termed out of office early next year.

At an appearance in Mountain View on Tuesday, he reiterated his support for debate on the issue, though he believes in the current law that makes the sale of marijuana illegal except for medical purposes.

The opinions of the state's politicians could be rendered moot in November, however, if voters approve a proposed ballot measure to legalize recreational marijuana under limited circumstances.

Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee, the initiative's main backer, has said supporters have obtained far more than the necessary 434,000 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

The Tax and Regulate Cannabis 2010 campaign is expected to submit those signatures for approval later this month.
More Articles in US »

* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
Posted by: Average Joeeeee

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 12:02 AM

I love reading this stuff. Not going to argue with anyone on this one. It wouldn't do any good. You just can't fix stupid. It comes down to this. He is a loooooosssssseeeeeeerrrrrrr and he got caught. END OF STORY!
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 07:19 AM

Wow Avg Joe - It must be great to be as perfect as you are, and the close-mindedness must serve you well to cast out name-calling like stupid and loser. I'm sure you're neither of those, and obviously very mature.
Posted by: Animal Lover

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 08:05 AM

I really don't care about marijuana and it being legalized or what have you. What I can't stand is people making excuses for others and being dishonest in the process.

This is what the article said:

Quote:
Investigators say they seized 68 marijuana plants, seven pounds of marijuana packaged for sale, five pounds of marijuana precursors, all with a street value of more than $40,000. Police also seized brass knuckles, a stun gun, cocaine and drugs, and over $5,000 in marijuana growing equipment, and more than $8,000 in cash from the house, a safety deposit box, and at least two bank accounts.


It also mentioned ventilation and irrigation systems. STOP making excuses for this guy because he has cancer. A lot of people have illnesses but they don't knowingly break the law and then because they come down with an illness turn around and use it as an excuse for breaking the law. He was into this long before he found out he had cancer. I feel bad for anyone with cancer but I don't feel bad for them when they get caught breaking the law.

Again, I really don't care if marijuana is legalized but for now it is illegal and he knew that so he took his chances and got caught. Next thing you will be telling us is he was growing it to make money to pay for his medical bills. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all do that? Oh, I can't afford my health insurance I think I'll go grow some weed. Give me a break terrapine and stop while you're behind. You are making a fool of this guy with your excuses. Let his lawyers and the court handle it.

Nobody is perfect and honestly you are the one that is close-minded. You are so close-minded that you think breaking the law is okay and that people should close their eyes to it. Also, you accusing someone of being immature is hilarious. Avg Joe didn't need to say what he did, but I would say the immature ones are you and Mr. O'Malley. He obviously has issues and very bad decision making skills. His judgment on what is the right and wrong thing to do sucks and so does yours for taking up for him. Not to mention putting all of his private info on a public forum. If I were his lawyer I would hunt you down and tape your fingers together so you couldn't type.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 09:18 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Taxpayer - Michael O'Malley is charged with simple POSSESSION. Yes, in NYS, marijuana is decriminalized, up to 25 grams. Even though his possession charge is a felony - it's still just "1st degree criminal possession of marijuana". It's NYS Penal Code number 221.30. It's a Non-violent Class C Felony with a minimum sentence of No Jail Time/Probation possible, and a max of 5-15 yrs, with no prior felonies.



Ok I see what you are saying. To me 'simple' possession would be unlawful possession of marijuana as defined in section 221.05 of the Penal Law.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
State tax collectors have estimated the bill could bring in nearly $1.4 billion in revenue.

Under the bill, much of that money would go to fund drug abuse education and prevention programs.



This should be the very reason that people should not want to see marijuana legalized.

You will be taxed on something for the sole purpose for political pork.

Why would anyone want that?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 10:31 AM

Animal Lover -

I'm not making excuses for anyone. I've provided an alternate point of view than simply "this kid's a scumbag and I hope he rots in jail". There are always two sides of every story. And as I said previously - ALL of the news articles and reports are wrong in at least one way or another. What you pasted above is not correct, it's simply what was reported.

That being said - what has happened has happened - and Mike is at the mercy of the courts now. Everyone involved understands that. Mike allegedly took a risk, and will pay for his crime as the courts decide. Does that somehow make the laws fair?
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 11:39 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Does that somehow make the laws fair?


Fair is a you go to eat cotton candy, ride the rides and step in cow crap.

What is fair? Is it to get what someone has? Is it to be allowed to do what someone else does?

There is no 'fair'. It's called life. It's what you make of it.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 02:55 PM

Excuse?

I personally feel he's quite heroic. Monetary donation to his defense forthcoming if needed.

Defend our local cannabis growers!
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 05:08 PM

Thanks Santa Cruz. I guess Taxpayer was reading too literally into the word 'fair'. I suppose I should have phrased my question "Does that somehow mean the laws make sense?"
But judging by his response about cotton candy and whining that life's not fair, I don't know if he'd recognize 'sense' if it hit him in the head with a candy apple.

I personally don't feel growing marijuana is necessarily all that wrong either. I don't agree with current marijuana laws - they are political in nature ONLY. I'm still waiting to have anyone explain to me - because I'm obviously stupid and a loser - why marijuana should be illegal. I haven't heard one reason. Instead of simply blindly following laws and regulations handed down by men and women you'll probably never meet, and who probably don't even really care about your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - use you're American-born freedom and the ability to think for yourself and actually inform yourself about those laws and what's behind them. You would be amazed when you find out the true origins of some of the laws in our country - and the mindsets and attitudes of those to implemented them. And unless people stop blindly following them, they never change.

I know marijuana isn't going to be legalized on this forum - not a lot actually does get accomplished other than ranting lol. But don't hold it against Mike that he's at the #### end of a set of nonsensical laws.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 07:31 PM

"I don't know if he'd recognize 'sense' if it hit him in the head with a candy apple."

Bingo!

"I don't agree with current marijuana laws - they are political in nature ONLY."

All laws are that, ONLY.
Posted by: jayray

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 09:14 PM

Bottom line is some kid dropped a dime on the Grower to get off another charge.
Legalize, regulate and TAX Marijuana to help solve our fiscal woes. Control the potency having different grades and allow ag students to save the family farm.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/13/10 09:20 PM

So long as the country is fruitcake enough to prohibit cannabis, I don't think there's much chance of solving its woes.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 09:15 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
"Does that somehow mean the laws make sense?"


Make sense to who? I understand the laws. To me they make sense.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
I'm still waiting to have anyone explain to me - because I'm obviously stupid and a loser - why marijuana should be illegal. I haven't heard one reason.



Reasons have been stated before. But since those reasons don't fall into the category of making sense it is an argument with no end.

Why not tell us why marijuana should be legalized. You will need to do better than 'because alcohol and cigarettes are legal', or 'the laws are dumb'.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Instead of simply blindly following laws and regulations handed down by men and women you'll probably never meet, and who probably don't even really care about your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - use you're American-born freedom and the ability to think for yourself and actually inform yourself about those laws and what's behind them. You would be amazed when you find out the true origins of some of the laws in our country - and the mindsets and attitudes of those to implemented them. And unless people stop blindly following them, they never change.



LOL! Now that's funny. At any time we all can concern ourselves with our own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Have you found out the true origins of the marijuana laws?

Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: jayray
Bottom line is some kid dropped a dime on the Grower to get off another charge.


There is always someone doing something worse than the other person. Just goes to show you we all have a price.


Originally Posted By: jayray
Legalize, regulate and TAX Marijuana to help solve our fiscal woes. Control the potency having different grades and allow ag students to save the family farm.



LOL! My all time favorite rant about marijuana legalization and how it will be our financial Gods send.

If someone really truly believes this to be true then when you do your 2009 taxes feel free to include your county sales tax on the purchases of all your marijuana. There is a line for other purchases and you don't have to tell anyone it was for marijuana.

Thank you in advance for helping the states fiscal problems.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 09:48 AM

The laws against marijuana use found its roots in Mexican immigration prior to the 1930's. It was after the Harrison Act and the laws of prohibition of alcohol, cocaine, opium, morphine and heroin. 19th century medicine included most of those narcotics and the movement after the war and addictions were on the rise, the introduction of marijuana laws were sensationalized and exploited as a connection to mexican immigration.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 09:49 AM

So is it a good thing or bad thing?
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 09:55 AM

Good thing for me, as I can charge more for my crop! The sensi seeds are getting expensive!

(Attn: Law enforcement: THIS IS A JOKE)
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 10:01 AM

Unfortunately, thats been the way of government....I wonder how it affects your amendment rights... As in today's court battles over marijuana laws, the clash then was between two polar constitutional concepts-the police powers of the state and allegedly "fundamental" personal constitutional rights. The conflict opened on state constitutional grounds and was continued in the realm of the fourteenth amendment.

It started with prohibition of alcohol, then opium, then possesion of alcohol,then possesion of narcotics. All in the idea of government regulated protections against self harm....Hard to say whether is a good thing or bad. But it does seem to be a conflict of personal freedoms.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 10:27 AM

I don't think this has affected my consitutional rights at all.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 10:44 AM

I think the biggest problem is the circumstances under which Congress was persuaded to enact the laws against marijuana primarily, that is to say; it was under the guise of immigration. It's use may in fact be a right of personal use and the use of police force against personal freedoms does pose a problem as it did with alcohol prohibition.
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 10:59 AM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456
I don't think this has affected my consitutional rights at all.


Sorry to be the one to inform you, but you are not the only person in this country with rights. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you should endure it. Gay rights doesn't affect me in anyway personally, but I support their personal freedoms.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:05 AM

Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but you are not the only person in this country with rights. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean you should endure it. Gay rights doesn't affect me in anyway personally, but I support their personal freedoms.



I don't mean me personally. What Consitutional rights are lost to those who want marijuana legalized?

You, me, other posters, all still have the freedom of choice.

Keep in mind that every single one of the Constitutional rights has restrictions in place.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:25 AM

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:27 AM

There is a lot there. What is the jist of it?
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:31 AM

There are two sides to the argument. So people still have the freedom to choose.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:31 AM

For those that seriously want to know.....just a resource.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:33 AM

There are resources on both sides for those who want to know.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:38 AM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456
There are resources on both sides for those who want to know.


Correct. Notice it is a ".org"
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:41 AM

I think that the choice that people are looking for is to smoke or not to smoke.

The choice that we are given now is whether or not to follow the law. Which, you are right, it is a choice, but not exactly a choice if you want to follow the law.
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:41 AM

Sorry senecamom, that was not directed to your post
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 11:46 AM

"it was under the guise of immigration."

Very true, and that's why I prefer "cannabis" to "marijuana". It historically, in the US, was called Indian hemp, hemp, or cannabis.

California was the 1st state to prohibit it, and they used immigration and rascism as a stalking horse, as in, "Those filthy Mexicans are getting high on marijuana and raping white women!".

Of course, the "Know Nothing", sweaty, ignorant, howling mob types of that day sucked up the Kool-Aid, and the measure passed, after they'd been whipped up into a perfect frenzy of belief that "Some Dangerous People" were in the grip of "reefer madness", were out of their crazed, drug-addled minds, and were a menace to all that was holy in American life and culture. Hatred, panic and fear sold just as well to the ignorant then as they do today.

It's also worth remembering that national prohibition was rammed through the US Senate after 90 minutes of "debate". Several groups were not allowed to testify, including the AMA, which was against prohibition.

My great grandmother, C. Anna Brown, graduated from SU med school in 1897. She practiced from then until she died in 1952. I was two when she died, so, although we met, I don't remember her.

I often wonder, though, what she thought of the prohibition of a substance that had been used by people for many thousands of years, for both medicine and recreation, and which she'd legally prescribed for about 40 years.

I can only guess what she thought, but, upon pain of having her medical license yanked by an ignorant, meddling government which had intruded itself into medical decision making (some things never change), I'm sure she went along with the coercion, and stopped prescribing it.

But, from what I've been told about her attitude, my guess is that she thought "Kiss my skinny 90 lb. a$$!".

In those days, of course, they made house visits, and you, SM, might find it interesting that she carried a .32 Cal. break-action Iver Johnson on those rounds. I've got a sneaking suspicion that she didn't feel compelled to ask anyone's opinion as to whether she had the right to do so, either. From what I've been told, she was locally famous for being a nice person who didn't take a lot of crap, lol.

Cannabis prohibition in the US doesn't make much sense to me until I remember that she lived in a country that was stupid enough to hold, until she had been practicing, as a college-educated MD. for 23 years, and was 50, that she neither the brains to vote responsibly, nor the intrinsic human right to do so.

It still holds that we don't have the intrinsic human right to choose to use cannabis, and denies us the liberty and freedom to do so. I strongly object; it is MY business, and none of the government's.

liberty:

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.


Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 12:00 PM

Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
I think that the choice that people are looking for is to smoke or not to smoke.

The choice that we are given now is whether or not to follow the law. Which, you are right, it is a choice, but not exactly a choice if you want to follow the law.



It's still a choice. The choice is still up to the individual. That choice won't grow or shrink due to legalization because there will still be law restrictions.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 12:08 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
It still holds that we don't have the intrinsic human right to choose to use cannabis, and denies us the liberty and freedom to do so. I strongly object; it is MY business, and none of the government's.

liberty:

1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.



You will never enjoy the free liberty. Because government controls it now by law. If personal use/possession is made legal the government will still regulate and enforce laws. Total use/possession/sale won't be a free for all.

Politicians enacted these laws and people complain about government interference. Now people want the politicians to change the laws and tax it thus allowing for possibly more government control and interference. I don't understand the rationale of that way of thinking.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 12:46 PM

Fascinating, VM, your grandmother sounds my kind of revolutionary woman. To further the thoughts of the governmental assault on an emerging industry here is in intro to vast amounts of history, which are neither advocates or proponents, but, simply history.


Since the dawn of civilization, people have cultivated the plant known scientifically as cannabis and agriculturally as hemp for its fiber, seed, and pharmaceutical properties.

Throughout the world, the records of archaeology and history reveal that humanity universally recognized the benefits of this unique plant.

Such recognition ended abruptly in 1930, when the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics began to educate the American public about marihuana, as hemp had been known colloquially in the Sonoran region of Mexico.

Between 1930 and 1934, the Bureau compiled a body of misinformation which suggested that the use of marihuana was directly linked to crime, induced violent behavior, and caused insanity.

Then, suddenly, in 1935, the Bureau flooded the nation with educational propaganda against marihuana use. During this act of demonization, the Bureau continuously cited its own accumulated body of misinformation as a precedent for legislation on the federal level.

Through this studied deception, the Bureau effectively lobbied for the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which considerably restricted the usage, distribution, and production of marihuana.Significantly, restrictions on marihuana automatically implied restrictions on the cultivation of hemp.


Several highly suspicious circumstances surround the Federal Bureau of Narcotics’ demonization of marihuana in the 1930s.

First, there never was a marihuana problem; this manufactured malady was a great media spoof.Secondly, the misinformation, which was disseminated to the public by the Bureau, was based on conjecture and hearsay; the objective truth and the scientific method were summarily discarded.

Furthermore, the Bureau even suppressed and ignored information which was unbiased, objective, and contradicted its own special brand of demonization.

The whole scenario of the Bureau’s “marihuana education” program is an amazing example of how easily the American public could be deceived by a slick propaganda campaign.(Sound familiar)

In retrospect, this trail of deceitful acts raises the possibility that the Bureau’s decision to demonize marihuana may have been prompted by hidden motives.

By strange coincidence the final assault of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics on marihuana occurred simultaneously with its own awareness of the emergence of a new hemp industry in America in 1935.

This new hemp industry was based on the commercial practicability of producing raw cellulose pulp from hemp for the manufacture of paper.

The Bureau seems to have demonized marihuana for motives that went far beyond its mandate to legally regulate the production and distribution of the drug.

Specifically, the Bureau provided the perfect vehicle for vested interests who wanted to terminate the movement to develop a hemp-based paper industry.

Marihuana was demonized by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s because of the hemp plant’s promising economic future.

Want to know why?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/history/conspiracy_intro.htm
Posted by: DogsRPpl2

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456
Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
I think that the choice that people are looking for is to smoke or not to smoke.

The choice that we are given now is whether or not to follow the law. Which, you are right, it is a choice, but not exactly a choice if you want to follow the law.



It's still a choice. The choice is still up to the individual. That choice won't grow or shrink due to legalization because there will still be law restrictions.


For the millionth time, no one is saying to have free and clear, no regulation access to cannibus. But the freedom of choice will grow, how can you not see that? We will have the choice to use cannibus just the same way we have the choice to use other regulated "drugs" such as alcohol and tobacco. Not a single person on here is arguing for a free-for-all on cannibus use! So if your only point is that it will be regulated, okay, I agree, it should be regulated. you win.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 01:00 PM

"You will never enjoy the free liberty."

1st, never say never; nothing is forever in this life, and certainly governments and laws aren't. 2nd, even if despotism were permanment, that's still no reason to not disagree with it, and fight it, just on general principle.

"Because government controls it now by law."

I've several choices here. I can believe that that is as it should be, and rejoice. I can disagree with it, but roll over like a submissive cur, and live with it. I can try to change or abolish the law. I can try to change or abolish the government.

"Now people want the politicians to change the laws and tax it thus allowing for possibly more government control and interference."

Some do, and some don't. In principle, I think spending is too high, and so taxes are too high. I don't, in principle, see that government should have any say in whether I use or grow, or hinder pot my use in any way, such as by taxation.

But that's doctrinaire libertarianism; it has no political hope of prevailing. Also, ALL doctrines founder of an excess of themselves; if they insist on idealogical purity, they tend towards absurdity.

For instance, pure unalloyed libertarianism is nigh onto anachism; it posits such things as no effective borders, free and uncontrolled border crossing and migration, etc., which I think are silly and impractical.

So, in practicality, I accept that we have a need for some government, and that taxation is also a way of controlling and regulating it to lessen use by minors, which not now done in ANY way, and won't be, as long as it's on the black market only.

"I don't understand the rationale of that way of thinking."

I see that, and think that it's because you think too much in black and white, either/or. Just because SOME people think that way, you reduce it to "people" as in "all people who don't take the one position, must then believe the other position".

That's not always true. Most times, there are more than 2 ways to look at a thing, and many hold a mixed position.
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 01:01 PM

"Fascinating, VM, your grandmother sounds my kind of revolutionary woman."

"...famous for being a nice person who didn't take a lot of crap,..." (VM)

That's what I thought, too. I aspire to be the same way
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 01:13 PM

"But the freedom of choice will grow, how can you not see that?"

By rights, it should, but I don't take it as a given; never underestimate the power of tyranny, or imagine that a majority won't willingly line up and beg to accept the yoke.

I personally think that the government is out of control, and increasingly unConstitutional and illegitimate, and that this is the natural progression of governments.

You can appeal to the better nature of the national government all you want, but it is not government's nature to willingly give up power, once seized.

That's why I don't see prohibition ending, unless it be for the purpose of imposing more taxes. That would be an imperfect solution, IMO, but practically speaking, it may be the only politically acceptable solution, and so I'll take the bargain, if offered.

I think that it may well happen, if only because the country is bankrupt and running on the fumes of momentum, if not actually flatlined. More revenue is needed, because spending won't be cut, and taxing pot has got to look more and more attractive to the prolifigate parasites in Washington.
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 01:59 PM

Vm, you are the King!
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 02:28 PM

Awww, shucks, Ma'am; I don't know about that, but I am an angry and sad man.....
Posted by: black88

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 04:29 PM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
"But the freedom of choice will grow, how can you not see that?"

By rights, it should, but I don't take it as a given; never underestimate the power of tyranny, or imagine that a majority won't willingly line up and beg to accept the yoke.

I personally think that the government is out of control, and increasingly unConstitutional and illegitimate, and that this is the natural progression of governments.

You can appeal to the better nature of the national government all you want, but it is not government's nature to willingly give up power, once seized.

That's why I don't see prohibition ending, unless it be for the purpose of imposing more taxes. That would be an imperfect solution, IMO, but practically speaking, it may be the only politically acceptable solution, and so I'll take the bargain, if offered.

I think that it may well happen, if only because the country is bankrupt and running on the fumes of momentum, if not actually flatlined. More revenue is needed, because spending won't be cut, and taxing pot has got to look more and more attractive to the prolifigate parasites in Washington.


Wow what a great post, unfortunately most people do not realize the truth in the above statements, especially your depictions of governments.

All one has to do is look at the rise and fall of all great civilizations and governments to realize we have reached the apex of ours and we are now on the decline of the great American way of life.

As time permits, the governments (State and Fed)will create more ways to take your earnings and dictate how your run your life via government run programs like welfare, SOCIAL security,and healthcare. Soon people will become so numbed to having their government do everything for them that they won't possibly be able to envision a life without having everything controlled and regulated for them. People will then not be able to take care of themselves and that will be the new normal and the end of our great society.

Has anyone else even noticed how our government has appointed ONE person to control most of the individual industries of the USA, and how they are blatantly called "CZARS"?

I could rant about this forever and I apologize if I am too far off topic here, but VM your post struck me, so I just had to speak up to share my opinion.

On topic, I believe that if the government could think of a easier way of taxing pot and stopping individuals from growing their own it would have been legal long ago.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/14/10 05:42 PM

It used to be that it was an insult to label someone a czar in American politics; one of Andy Jackson's opponents was so labeled. Nixon was the one who started personally using the term, when he called William Simon his energy czar. Subsequent presidents have shied away from the term, although the press uses it.

I don't think they can ever stop people from growing, and, in the event of legality, there would be no need to. All they'd have to do is enforce the current requirement to buy a growing license, and to actually issue them, instead of just arresting people for not having one. They currently require home distillers to buy a license, and I'll bet almost all of them do so. They call it a license fee, but most of us, and the government, too, know it's really a tax. I mean, c'mon.....what should a piece of paper cost, if it's really a fee?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 07:58 AM

VM & Senecamom - thank you for providing some great links and news articles. I'd rather discuss topics with informed folks instead of those who'd just rather say "the government tells me cannabis is wrong, so it has to be - and if you don't agree, you're a law-breaker and therefore evil." (and please dumb-down that sentence as much as necessary - I probably should have included some typos and improper grammar - 'your a law-breaker'). lol

On a side note: For anyone who might be interested in helping Mike out through this time, please contact me via private message. I'm in the beginning stages of planning a Spaghetti Dinner Benefit on behalf of Mike and his family. Anyone who might want to help out, donate, toss in ideas/suggestions for the benefit, etc. - just let me know. We have a location in mind, but if anyone has a place to suggest - that would be great as well.
And before my inbox fills with nonsense messages - if you're not in support of Mike, and only want to rag on this situation more, don't bother messaging me. You can make your opinions known right here on the forum. I'm only looking to hear from those who genuinely want to provide support.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:15 AM

Originally Posted By: DogsRPpl2
For the millionth time, no one is saying to have free and clear, no regulation access to cannibus. But the freedom of choice will grow, how can you not see that? We will have the choice to use cannibus just the same way we have the choice to use other regulated "drugs" such as alcohol and tobacco. Not a single person on here is arguing for a free-for-all on cannibus use! So if your only point is that it will be regulated, okay, I agree, it should be regulated. you win.



If no one wants free and clear deregulation of marijuana then what is the end result people want?

In NYS one can possess marijuana and it's NOT a crime. It's easily accessible, it's cheap and in the off chance someone gets caught, they pay a civil penalty. That civil penalty can be viewed as a tax. Having people pay the fine, tax, penalty or whatever one wants to call it would be a good thing right? I mean that's what people want to do right?
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
VM & Senecamom - thank you for providing some great links and news articles. I'd rather discuss topics with informed folks instead of those who'd just rather say "the government tells me cannabis is wrong, so it has to be - and if you don't agree, you're a law-breaker and therefore evil." (and please dumb-down that sentence as much as necessary - I probably should have included some typos and improper grammar - 'your a law-breaker'). lol

On a side note: For anyone who might be interested in helping Mike out through this time, please contact me via private message. I'm in the beginning stages of planning a Spaghetti Dinner Benefit on behalf of Mike and his family. Anyone who might want to help out, donate, toss in ideas/suggestions for the benefit, etc. - just let me know. We have a location in mind, but if anyone has a place to suggest - that would be great as well.
And before my inbox fills with nonsense messages - if you're not in support of Mike, and only want to rag on this situation more, don't bother messaging me. You can make your opinions known right here on the forum. I'm only looking to hear from those who genuinely want to provide support.


Just to be clear, I do not support what Mike is accused of. Sorry.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:28 AM

Originally Posted By: VM Smith
I think that it may well happen, if only because the country is bankrupt and running on the fumes of momentum, if not actually flatlined. More revenue is needed, because spending won't be cut, and taxing pot has got to look more and more attractive to the prolifigate parasites in Washington.



LOL! The government won't control spending and that is why this state and country are in the financial bind they are in. By making something legal for the sole purpose of taxing it in order to have more money to spend is absurd.

If that is the ideaology people want out of legalizing marijuana then why not simply do away with the tax exemption on food, food products, medicine, etc. and tax it? The end result is the same right? More money to spend.
Posted by: Senecamom

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:32 AM

Actually, what you describe is a good example of Governmental thinking today....no real plan, just tax and spend. I am not trying to be inflammatory, its just that the government may very well see this as an opportunity for all the wrong reasons as you have stated.
Posted by: Animal Lover

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:35 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
VM & Senecamom - thank you for providing some great links and news articles. I'd rather discuss topics with informed folks instead of those who'd just rather say "the government tells me cannabis is wrong, so it has to be - and if you don't agree, you're a law-breaker and therefore evil." (and please dumb-down that sentence as much as necessary - I probably should have included some typos and improper grammar - 'your a law-breaker'). lol

On a side note: For anyone who might be interested in helping Mike out through this time, please contact me via private message. I'm in the beginning stages of planning a Spaghetti Dinner Benefit on behalf of Mike and his family. Anyone who might want to help out, donate, toss in ideas/suggestions for the benefit, etc. - just let me know. We have a location in mind, but if anyone has a place to suggest - that would be great as well.
And before my inbox fills with nonsense messages - if you're not in support of Mike, and only want to rag on this situation more, don't bother messaging me. You can make your opinions known right here on the forum. I'm only looking to hear from those who genuinely want to provide support.


Being you put out so much personal info on Mike would you mind answering a question? I think a lot of people would be curious to know what kind of person Mike is before they start contributing.

Did or does Mike have gainful employment over the years since he has been considered an adult? Was he working somewhere before he came down with cancer? If he is a hard-working guy who has been contributing to society and was growing weed on the side to make an extra $83,000 then you know, maybe some of us would be willing to help. (sarcasm) But if he is the kind of guy that is growing illegal drugs for a living then I don't think you are going to get much help from the general pubic. Maybe from his family and customers.

Seriously, I don't mean to sound cruel but give me a freaking break.

And before anyone starts spewing nonsense about me thinking I'm perfect and judging this guy don't waste your time. I'm not perfect but I'm not knowingly breaking the law growing an illegal substance for resale. Beyond that I'm just as messed up as anyone else. But I have a right to think this is ridiculous.

I would much rather help someone who has contributed to society in a way that is considered more acceptable. If he wanted a little weed to smoke for himself good for him. But this guy was into selling and no one can convince me otherwise.
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Senecamom
Just to be clear, I do not support what Mike is accused of. Sorry.


No Worries Senecamom. I just appreciate you taking the time to provide some great informative articles.

Animal Lover - yes, Mike has had jobs to support himself over the years.
And do you know that $83K was actually discovered? Or are you simply believing what you read and hear in the news? Remember - sensationalism goes a long way and there are many details that have been exaggerated for that purpose.
If you don't care to support Mike, don't - I didn't ask you to. And if you think a benefit would be a flop - that's fine, don't show up. We honestly wouldn't want you there, sorry - you're kind of a Debbie-Downer.... And we tend to be happier people.

Taxpayer - POSSESSING under 25 grams of marijuana is a simple violation. However, buying it, smoking it, etc. are illegal - and subject to harsher punishments. So, unless someone has the ability to simply fabricate their stash out of thin air and then somehow ingest it miraculously - cannabis is illegal and punishable. So, no, those who support legalization do not currently have the 'governmental regulated marijuana laws we want'....
Posted by: Animal Lover

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 09:03 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Originally Posted By: Senecamom
Just to be clear, I do not support what Mike is accused of. Sorry.


Animal Lover - yes, Mike has had jobs to support himself over the years.
And do you know that $83K was actually discovered? Or are you simply believing what you read and hear in the news? Remember - sensationalism goes a long way and there are many details that have been exaggerated for that purpose.If you don't care to support Mike, don't - I didn't ask you to. And if you think a benefit would be a flop - that's fine, don't show up. We honestly wouldn't want you there, sorry - you're kind of a Debbie-Downer.... And we tend to be happier people.


Well, I'm sure the truth will all come out. That's what people always claim. That they didn't do it. It's a lie. It's an exaggeration. So I'm supposed to take your word over others?

And as far as me being a debbie downer, whatever. LOL. I'm a very happy person. But I call b.s. when I see it. I'm what you would call a happy realist.

ETA:

You really didn't answer my question. Mike has had jobs over the years? He's 25. How many different jobs? Where is he working now or where was he working right before he got sick/arrested? Oh, he wasn't working recently? Was he too busy installing ventilation and irrigation systems?
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 09:05 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie

Taxpayer - POSSESSING under 25 grams of marijuana is a simple violation. However, buying it, smoking it, etc. are illegal - and subject to harsher punishments. So, unless someone has the ability to simply fabricate their stash out of thin air and then somehow ingest it miraculously - cannabis is illegal and punishable. So, no, those who support legalization do not currently have the 'governmental regulated marijuana laws we want'....



The one selling the marijuana can be charged with sale. Which would be a crime. The one buying under the law stated amount can be charged with a non-criminal offense. Simply, unlawful possession of marijuana. Smoking it in your own home and getting caught is the non-criminal offense of unlawful possession of marijuana.

Smoking it in public is a crime.

Seems like NYS is actually on top of things as far as having de-criminalized marijuana.

Having a growing system in place and possessing 68 plants along with illegal weapons and cocaine will always be illegal.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
On a side note: For anyone who might be interested in helping Mike out through this time, please contact me via private message. I'm in the beginning stages of planning a Spaghetti Dinner Benefit on behalf of Mike and his family.



Will there be a certain type of brownies for desert?
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 10:09 AM

Animal Lover - do you need his resume and references from former employers? Either way - you've already stated that you're not interested in contributing and think the idea of helping out a friend is ridiculous. So - at this point, it's none of your business who his employers have been and when he worked - because you'll still have your preconceived notions and judgement about him.

Taxpayer - you just contradicted yourself in the same stinking post - are you sure your short term memory hasn't been affected at all....
"The one selling the marijuana can be charged with sale. Which would be a crime.... Seems like NYS is actually on top of things as far as having de-criminalized marijuana."

What?!?! So tell me how, again, marijuana is not a crime? How does the buyer buy it? If it's in public, it's illegal. So... how does one transport their purchase to their private home, without having it in public? The seller is always wrong... So in order for someone to purchase their supposedly legal marijuana - one, if not both involved, has to break the law. How do you not understand that the 'de-criminalization' present in NYS is no where near a permanent solution? At least, not a permanent solution to those who believe it should be our choice whether to use it or not.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 10:22 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
What?!?! So tell me how, again, marijuana is not a crime? How does the buyer buy it? If it's in public, it's illegal.



You need to get off the pot. It's not doing you any good. The charge of unlawful possession of marijuana is NOT a crime. It is a violation. A crime is a misdemeanor or a felony. A violation is NOT a crime. I am not sure I can put that any simpler.

If you are walking in public holding an unlit joint the charge is unlawful possession of marijuana. It's a violation and NOT a crime.

The only law in regards to being in public is the smoking of marijuana in public. Which would make that possession a crime. That crime would be a misdemeanor.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
So... how does one transport their purchase to their private home, without having it in public? The seller is always wrong... So in order for someone to purchase their supposedly legal marijuana - one, if not both involved, has to break the law.



Whh what?

And people say marijuana use has no long term profound effect on someone.


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
How do you not understand that the 'de-criminalization' present in NYS is no where near a permanent solution? At least, not a permanent solution to those who believe it should be our choice whether to use it or not.



What is the permanent solution?

It is still your choice whether or not you want to use it. I exercise my choice everyday by not wanting to use it.
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 10:41 AM

Taxpayer - READ YOUR LAWS!!! You're not getting it.
And, as has been said before - the choice right now is whether or not to break the law; it is not simply the choice of whether or not to use.

Here's the actual Penal Code.
§ 221.05 Unlawful possession of marihuana.
A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he
knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana.
Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant
has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or
article 220 of this chapter, committed within the three years
immediately preceding such violation, it shall be punishable (a) only by
a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, if the defendant was
previously convicted of one such offense committed during such period,
and (b) by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or a term
of imprisonment not in excess of fifteen days or both, if the defendant
was previously convicted of two such offenses committed during such
period.

And here's the first 'Non-Violation' - aka Criminal - Penal Code charge:
§ 221.10 Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth
degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses:
1. marihuana in a public place, as defined in section 240.00 of this
chapter, and such marihuana is burning or open to public view; or
2. one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances
containing marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or
substances are of an aggregate weight of more than twenty-five grams.
Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree is a class B
misdemeanor.

And here's the first sale Penal Code charge:
§ 221.35 Criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree
when he knowingly and unlawfully sells, without consideration, one or
more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing
marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances are of
an aggregate weight of two grams or less; or one cigarette containing
marihuana.
Criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree is a class B
misdemeanor.

So.... remind me again how buying, selling, and possessing cannabis is not illegal again.....
You say apparently marijuana has affected my ability to think - but take some time, a deep breath or two to prepare - and read the friggin laws. In order to POSSESS marijuana - you have to either buy it or grow it yourself - both of which involves CRIMINAL activity.... I don't understand how you don't see the Catch-22 the law has set up....
Posted by: NOTPERFECT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 10:47 AM

I've been watching this thread since it began and would like to share a few things with everyone.

First, terrapinie and others thanks for the show of support for this young man.

Second, Animal Lover, you & several others are naturally wondering what type of person Mike is, I will try to answer that as best I can.

Mike has had several jobs, starting with a local pennysaver route when he was 10, and adding a regular paper route to that as soon as he was old enough. He worked at various jobs through high school here in the community. He also worked at a local factory and a local restaurant or two while going to college.
He most recently was employed as an assistant manager at a store at the outlet mall. Sometimes he held two jobs at the same time.

He also has a family that loves him and supports him that consists of his mother and two younger sisters, who have all been affected by his cancer diagnosis and now by the legal issues as well. He'd give a friend the shirt off his back & a
place to stay if they asked.

He is not a "hardened" criminal by any means.

And just to clear something up -- Mike was not the only person living in that house, just the only one there when the search warrant was served - remember the paper said "more arrests to come"
Posted by: it'sme

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 11:01 AM

delivered pizza for Avicolli's. Cut people off and flipped people off (with A's sign on his car). Avicollli's did nothing despite complaints. They lost business, including ours.
Posted by: Z Genius Lusifer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 11:03 AM

Originally Posted By: NOTPERFECT
I've been watching this thread since it began and would like to share a few things with everyone.

First, terrapinie and others thanks for the show of support for this young man.

Second, Animal Lover, you & several others are naturally wondering what type of person Mike is, I will try to answer that as best I can.

Mike has had several jobs, starting with a local pennysaver route when he was 10, and adding a regular paper route to that as soon as he was old enough. He worked at various jobs through high school here in the community. He also worked at a local factory and a local restaurant or two while going to college.
He most recently was employed as an assistant manager at a store at the outlet mall. Sometimes he held two jobs at the same time.

He also has a family that loves him and supports him that consists of his mother and two younger sisters, who have all been affected by his cancer diagnosis and now by the legal issues as well. He'd give a friend the shirt off his back & a
place to stay if they asked.

He is not a "hardened" criminal by any means.

And just to clear something up -- Mike was not the only person living in that house, just the only one there when the search warrant was served - remember the paper said "more arrests to come"



Lets add that he was quite the horticulturalist as well!
Posted by: Kitty

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 11:04 AM

"...And before anyone starts spewing nonsense about me thinking I'm perfect..."

You're just being practical. I don't think any one wishes ill-will on the man, but there are limitations to our sympathy and empathy.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 11:16 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Taxpayer - READ YOUR LAWS!!! You're not getting it.
And, as has been said before - the choice right now is whether or not to break the law; it is not simply the choice of whether or not to use.


It is a choice whether you choose to want to or not. I exercise my right everyday not to want to use. I will exercise my right later not to shoplift when I go to the store.

What are you looking for? Do you want the government to tell you it's ok? Are you looking to be lead by the hand?


Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Here's the actual Penal Code.
§ 221.05 Unlawful possession of marihuana.
A person is guilty of unlawful possession of marihuana when he
knowingly and unlawfully possesses marihuana.
Unlawful possession of marihuana is a violation punishable only by a
fine of not more than one hundred dollars. However, where the defendant
has previously been convicted of an offense defined in this article or
article 220 of this chapter, committed within the three years
immediately preceding such violation, it shall be punishable (a) only by
a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, if the defendant was
previously convicted of one such offense committed during such period,
and (b) by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or a term
of imprisonment not in excess of fifteen days or both, if the defendant
was previously convicted of two such offenses committed during such
period.



The key word is VIOLATION. It is NOT a crime.



Originally Posted By: terrapinie
And here's the first 'Non-Violation' - aka Criminal - Penal Code charge:
§ 221.10 Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth
degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses:
1. marihuana in a public place, as defined in section 240.00 of this
chapter, and such marihuana is burning or open to public view; or
2. one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances
containing marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or
substances are of an aggregate weight of more than twenty-five grams.
Criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree is a class B
misdemeanor.

And here's the first sale Penal Code charge:
§ 221.35 Criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree.
A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree
when he knowingly and unlawfully sells, without consideration, one or
more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing
marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances are of
an aggregate weight of two grams or less; or one cigarette containing
marihuana.
Criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree is a class B
misdemeanor.

So.... remind me again how buying, selling, and possessing cannabis is not illegal again.....
You say apparently marijuana has affected my ability to think - but take some time, a deep breath or two to prepare - and read the friggin laws. In order to POSSESS marijuana - you have to either buy it or grow it yourself - both of which involves CRIMINAL activity.... I don't understand how you don't see the Catch-22 the law has set up....



What I have been saying is unlawful possession of marijuana is NOT a crime.

Whew! I am glad that you finally realize that what your friend here did was illegal.

As a friend you should of had this talk with him.
Posted by: Animal Lover

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Kitty
"...And before anyone starts spewing nonsense about me thinking I'm perfect..."

You're just being practical. I don't think any one wishes ill-will on the man, but there are limitations to our sympathy and empathy.


Exactly. Thank you kitty. I sympathize for him and his family about the cancer, but I, personally, would set a limit as far as whether or not I would help them out financially.
Posted by: NOTPERFECT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 12:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Kitty
"...And before anyone starts spewing nonsense about me thinking I'm perfect..."

You're just being practical. I don't think any one wishes ill-will on the man, but there are limitations to our sympathy and empathy.


Exactly. Thank you kitty. I sympathize for him and his family about the cancer, but I, personally, would set a limit as far as whether or not I would help them out financially.


A question was asked and it was answered -- only meant for enlightenment - not to evoke sympathy or empathy -- what you choose to do or not do is your business.[/color]
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 12:29 PM

Taxpayer - you said:
"Seems like NYS is actually on top of things as far as having de-criminalized marijuana."

Now you're back peddling. Yes, it's a violation to possess under 25 grams. In order to possess it however - you must break the law to get it. I don't know how many more times I can explain this Catch-22 to you... Seems as though you require a tack-hammer to the forehead to actually get something in there....

And for It'sme:
with A's sign on his car

Is that supposed to be referring to an Avicolli's sign on his car? Or A's sign as in Oakland....?
Posted by: Unique

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 02:23 PM

What will we be helping Mike out with...bail ($40,000) or medical/travel bills?
Posted by: Unique

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 02:31 PM

LOL this is sooooooooo funny. Brownies?? Probably!
Originally Posted By: Taxpayer14456
Originally Posted By: terrapinie
On a side note: For anyone who might be interested in helping Mike out through this time, please contact me via private message. I'm in the beginning stages of planning a Spaghetti Dinner Benefit on behalf of Mike and his family.



Will there be a certain type of brownies for desert?
Posted by: Unique

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 02:57 PM

Originally Posted By: NOTPERFECT
I've been watching this thread since it began and would like to share a few things with everyone.

First, terrapinie and others thanks for the show of support for this young man.

Second, Animal Lover, you & several others are naturally wondering what type of person Mike is, I will try to answer that as best I can.

Mike has had several jobs, starting with a local pennysaver route when he was 10, and adding a regular paper route to that as soon as he was old enough. He worked at various jobs through high school here in the community. He also worked at a local factory and a local restaurant or two while going to college.
He most recently was employed as an assistant manager at a store at the outlet mall. Sometimes he held two jobs at the same time.

He also has a family that loves him and supports him that consists of his mother and two younger sisters, who have all been affected by his cancer diagnosis and now by the legal issues as well. He'd give a friend the shirt off his back & a
place to stay if they asked.

He is not a "hardened" criminal by any means.

And just to clear something up -- Mike was not the only person living in that house, just the only one there when the search warrant was served - remember the paper said "more arrests to come"

Hello Mom! Uhhh didn't we forget Mike worked in a "tatoo shop"? At 25 one would want to settle in...somewhere.
Posted by: NOTPERFECT

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 03:09 PM


"Hello Mom! Uhhh didn't we forget Mike worked in a "tatoo shop"? At 25 one would want to settle in...somewhere."
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

Wrong again, not mom, just a concerned longtime friend of the family,

didn't know about tatoo shop - mea culpa
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 03:12 PM

Certain individuals vying for sainthood by running Mike through the meatgrinder.

Pathetic.
Posted by: Santa_Cruzer

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 03:12 PM

Certain individuals vying for sainthood by running Mike through the meatgrinder.

Pathetic.
Posted by: VM Smith

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Originally Posted By: Senecamom
Just to be clear, I do not support what Mike is accused of. Sorry.


No Worries Senecamom. I just appreciate you taking the time to provide some great informative articles.

Animal Lover - yes, Mike has had jobs to support himself over the years.
And do you know that $83K was actually discovered? Or are you simply believing what you read and hear in the news? Remember - sensationalism goes a long way and there are many details that have been exaggerated for that purpose.
If you don't care to support Mike, don't - I didn't ask you to. And if you think a benefit would be a flop - that's fine, don't show up. We honestly wouldn't want you there, sorry - you're kind of a Debbie-Downer.... And we tend to be happier people.

Taxpayer - POSSESSING under 25 grams of marijuana is a simple violation. However, buying it, smoking it, etc. are illegal - and subject to harsher punishments. So, unless someone has the ability to simply fabricate their stash out of thin air and then somehow ingest it miraculously - cannabis is illegal and punishable. So, no, those who support legalization do not currently have the 'governmental regulated marijuana laws we want'....


Good points. Also, remember that since the limit is less than an ounce, that precludes growing it, which means you're going to have to buy it on the black market, which means that some money will be diverted from other, legal markets and activities, where it is generally taxed. IOW, if you're forced to buy a bag, because you can't simply grow a plant in a flower pot, you're not going to buy a widget or any other good or service with it.
Posted by: queenbee

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/15/10 08:40 PM

I believe this beaten horse is now a carcass.
Posted by: Badge420

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/16/10 09:11 AM

Originally Posted By: queenbee
I believe this beaten horse is now a carcass.


A baby step forward in getting people to understand this substance, and a giant step backwards for Mike.
Posted by: bluezone

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 07:07 AM

Originally Posted By: NOTPERFECT
-- Mike was not the only person living in that house, just the only one there when the search warrant was served -


he was not aware of the plants growing there?
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 09:03 AM

Originally Posted By: terrapinie
Now you're back peddling. Yes, it's a violation to possess under 25 grams. In order to possess it however - you must break the law to get it. I don't know how many more times I can explain this Catch-22 to you... Seems as though you require a tack-hammer to the forehead to actually get something in there....



Yes what this man did was illegal. Yes he broke the law. I totally understand that. Why didn't you say so in the first place?
Posted by: Endoftheroad

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 09:57 AM


Leave the poor kid alone, it was only a few pounds.
Posted by: Taxpayer14456

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 10:00 AM

LOL! Ok.
Posted by: angela

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 07:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Endoftheroad

Leave the poor kid alone, it was only a few pounds.
Oly a few pounds???grrrrrrrrr......
Posted by: oops12

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/18/10 07:28 PM

Originally Posted By: queenbee
I believe this beaten horse is now a carcass.


I agree with ya!
Posted by: terrapinie

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/19/10 03:02 PM

The question was asked a few posts ago about the fundraiser for Mike. It will help with his Legal matters, as well as his Medical issues and Traveling expenses. He was just recently dropped from his health insurance, so he is currently one of the many Americans without coverage.

Posted by: grinch

Re: Another "retired" farmer - 01/19/10 03:40 PM




No I am not interested and I believe FL1 is remiss in allowing you to advertise a benefit for an individual in such circumstances. If the charges are dropped or he is proven innocent then hold your benefit. Most of us have better use for our money than supporting the marijuana trade. What happened here is against the law as it now stands and he was the one arrested and charged.


How about we hold a benefit dinner to raise funds to prosecute alleged law breakers and felons? The police did not go there accidentally, nor arrest this person without cause. Whether or not he installed this sophisticated system to grow marijuana, he
reportedly lived there and had to know of activities within that household. He could have left at anytime before this happened. In my opinion, by those actions alone he abetted the crime, misdemeanor or violation whatever it well may be.

There are associated costs for the policing action that brought charges against this individual that have to be paid for. The cost of the DA to examine evidence, deciding what or if charges should be pursued and the cost of a trial have to be paid for from public funds. Should he opt for a public defender, again the taxpayer will have to pay. Should he have family he supports they may qualify for public funds through welfare services.

If convicted and sentenced to jail then we have the cost of providing supervision, meals and medical care.

Those are needless taxpayers expenses because this individual or others in that household decided to grow and traffic in marijuana. That has caused everyone's property taxes to rise. The $83000 reportedly seized at the time of the raid will offset some of those costs, but not all


If anyone is willing to donate additional funds to support law and order then write a check to the Treasurer of Seneca Co. marking it for law enforcement only.