What's new

Value Of Illegal Marijuana Crops Up For Debate

vta

Active member
Veteran
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n931/a07.html

Source: Fresno Bee, The (CA)

Author: Jim Guy

VALUE OF ILLEGAL MARIJUANA CROPS UP FOR DEBATE

Supporters of legalizing marijuana and officers charged with seizing it have different opinions about the drug, but they agree on one point: It's a valuable crop.

Just how valuable, however, is another point of contention.

With the arrival of fall, growers of the illicit crop are racing to harvest the plants while law enforcement officials rush to find and wipe out growing sites. In two recent seizures in Tulare and Fresno counties, officials destroyed thousands of plants, which they said were worth $7.2 million.

That estimate is based on a formula used by the state Department of Justice: on average, each plant would yield a pound of usable marijuana over its remaining lifetime, and a pound of marijuana is worth about $4,000 when sold in small quantities on the street.

While marijuana advocates generally agree with authorities on the value of a pound of marijuana, they disagree that each plant yields a pound of pot. They say authorities should measure the actual marijuana seized, rather than make assumptions about a plant's lifetime potential.

The argument is more than a technical discussion. Larger quantities generally result in harsher penalties in court.

Keith Stroup, legal counsel for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, better known as NORML, calls the values police put on seizures "self-serving."

"I don't think most plants [would yield a pound] at any one time — unless it's a massive plant," he said. "What would make more sense would be to weigh the buds," which are the part of the marijuana plant where the intoxicant, a chemical called THC, is located.

Special Agent Casey McEnry of the federal Drug Enforcement Agency in San Francisco disagrees.

"We're not weighing the plants," she said. "When I give an estimate, it's based on how many pounds [a plant] is capable of producing."

That's also the approach taken by the state Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. Michelle Gregory, a special agent in Sacramento, said while some plants may not produce a pound, others will produce more.

"We're not going to weigh it over and over," she added, disputing arguments by marijuana advocates that prosecutions should be based on the weight of the drug when it's dry because that is its usable form.

The two local seizures illustrate how state bureau's formula is used.

Tulare County Sheriff's deputies took part in an operation last month that captured 200 plants and valued the seizure at $800,000.

Chris Douglass, a spokeswoman for the Tulare County Sheriff, said the $4,000-per-plant formula was more than fair in this case. Some plants had very large roots and some were more than 10 feet tall and could produce multiple pounds per plant, she said.

In another raid last month, Fresno County Sheriff's officials reported eradicating 1,400 plants, worth $5.6 million at $4,000 each, and 200 pounds of processed marijuana, worth $800,000 at $4,000 each, for a total value of $6.4 million.

While marijuana advocates argue that the weight assumption built into the state formula is too aggressive, some police agencies think the market value assumption can be too conservative.

Fresno Police spokesman Jeff Cardinale said his department, for example, adjusts the value depending on local market conditions — an equation that "fluctuates depending upon supply and demand."

In Fresno, the street price for an ounce of quality marijuana is $300 and up, according to operators of several medical marijuana clinics. This results in a value of $4,800 per plant, assuming each produces a pound.

Users of marijuana interviewed for this story said the price for an ounce was about the same when the drug is bought from street dealers. Stroup, of NORML, said nationally the price of an ounce can vary from $300 to more than $600.

Gregory, of the state Department of Justice, stood by the agency's pricing system. She said officers get their prices based on information from traffickers.

"That's the price [drug dealers are] giving us," she said, "and they know better than we do."



STRONGER POT

Hippie-era marijuana users would find today's drug not only more expensive, but much more potent.

The cost of marijuana 40 years ago — generally $10 per ounce — is about 30 times more expensive today, according to Panama Red, who blogs on the pro-marijuana Web site budlife420.com

And he agrees with law enforcement officials that pot is more powerful now. When marijuana was imported from Mexico back then, entire plants — including non-psychoactive stems and seeds — were compressed by smugglers using devices such as car jacks. They would then cut the pot into 12-by-6-by-3-inch sections and sell it as "bricks," or "keys," which was shorthand for kilos — 2.2 pounds.

Since then, cultivators have used genetic engineering to increase the potency of the drug. It is uncommon for dealers to sell — or buyers to want — anything but the psychoactive buds.

Gordon Taylor, who oversaw much of Northern and Central California in 2007 as special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's Sacramento office, said a strain called "BC bud" is eight times more potent than the marijuana of the 1970s.

:moon:
 
thats bullshit with the cops and the weight..i guarentee the cops around here weigh the WHOLE plant including the rootball...thats more than throwing off the numbers, thats fraud if you ask me..80% of the plants weight is in water, then you got the heavy-ass soil-laden roots that weighs another 15% of the total leaving 5% of the whole weight for buds the way i see it.
 
When testing strains each plant is bloomed to yield about 10- 15 grams of cured medicinal quality flowers- dry weight.
-sp

So either the US gov owes seedy a good 430 grams pp, or something has gone very wrong in the flowering room.

"We're not going to weigh it over and over," she added, disputing arguments by marijuana advocates that prosecutions should be based on the weight of the drug when it's dry because that is its usable form.
This is truly the best part, because technically they are weighing plants without thc on them or in minimal amounts (if weighed when freshly chopped). Hence suggesting, someone should get their lawyers on this.

It could be suggested by some that the lawmakers have not followed scientific evidence reported upon in the delineation of marijuana psycho-activity; and well a forensic scientist of a pro-legalization nature could make a valuable precedence from such legislative behaviour.

Just like a DNA test can be done and rechecked by plaintiff side, so should such matters as cannabinoid content, thc transformation and similar analogues.

It would not make sense to most that pharmaceutical companies can sell derivatives of CBD, but others whom have much less psychoactive forms of chemicals in their plants would be charged for the illegality of those said substances- though the illegality of thc precursors has not yet been defined, from what I believe [...also a point I am trying to make].

Unless the government leaders follow the current research and scientific trends the pharmaceutical companies they support follow, then it will be unlikely that they can be found liable to make any decisions regarding the future of the people who voted for them.

:confused:

BKompost
:joint:
 
B

Blue Dot

"We're not weighing the plants," she said. "When I give an estimate, it's based on how many pounds [a plant] is capable of producing."

Since when is the ACTUAL price of anything ever based on on ESTIMATE?!
 

nepalnt21

FRRRRRResh!
Veteran
genetic engineering??? are they serious???

im not convinced that the pot is that much more potent now, or all the old timers wouldnt be so nostalgic for the pot they smoked back in the day.
 
yeah genetic engineering? thats bullshit....its called selective breeding...
the last thing we need is cannabis to be genetically engineered..
 

Hash Zeppelin

Ski Bum Rodeo Clown
Premium user
ICMag Donor
Veteran
this is all bullshit anyways. we should spend more of our time aruing with them why you should be able to grow a million pounds if you want and not be charged with shit!
 

dc2bar

Member
haha, that remind me of a saying my growing mentor used to say whenever we saw a bust on the news:

"if that's street value, I need to be selling on that street."

Hyperinflating numbers to make a backyard grower look like a million dollar grow op is part of the government and medias agenda to keep prohibition alive.
 

ColoradoKid

New member
genetic engineering??? are they serious???

im not convinced that the pot is that much more potent now, or all the old timers wouldnt be so nostalgic for the pot they smoked back in the day.


Ummmm.....it has been rumored that back in the 60's I used to smoke bud that was moderately good. Once a friend and I had a pinner the size of a flat toothpick. We each got 1 toke. We were Totally wasted for about 4 hours and couldn't even remember our names. AH, the good old days. :joint:

Is the cannabis of today stronger than back then? HELL NO! :nanana:
 

medmaker420

The Aardvarks LED Grow Show
Veteran
Fresno is my stomping ground. They are trying to remove our clubs with the only stance they had, I repeat had which was they needed to follow state AND federal laws. Now that obama actually is telling the feds to fuck off for the most part fresno should start popping out clubs much more.

If you know people you get zips for $150-$250 of quality as in diesel, gdp, og kush and so on. There is however a TON of outdoor due to our location as well though.
 

odin_

Member
That's also the approach taken by the state Department of Justice's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement. Michelle Gregory, a special agent in Sacramento, said while some plants may not produce a pound, others will produce more.

how retarded is that? 99.9% yield under a pound (far under really) and maybe .1% yields more than a pound, so lets just lump them all together

its insane that the guy with a coli, running say 4 lights, gets 5 years while the guy with 99 trees and 10k watts gets county time

god the us sucks
 

Pythagllio

Patient Grower
Veteran
Ummmm.....it has been rumored that back in the 60's I used to smoke bud that was moderately good. Once a friend and I had a pinner the size of a flat toothpick. We each got 1 toke. We were Totally wasted for about 4 hours and couldn't even remember our names. AH, the good old days. :joint:

Is the cannabis of today stronger than back then? HELL NO! :nanana:

I recall a particular bag of Panama Red I copped in 1979. Ended up landing at this eccentric fellow's home, a bonafide Addams Family mansion complete with cobwebs and a suit of armor and other medieval decor. We smoked a few hits of that Panama Red and he put Gregorian chants on the stereo. Absolutely the most remarkable pure cannabis high of my life. 1979. Brickweed. Imported. Not hydro. 1/2 seeds and stems. No fucking way does anyone get more high on today's pot.

There are lots of ways to deceive with averages. The old saw is there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm sure most reading this have heard that the average age of death in the US for people born in 1900 was in the low 40s. But did you know that the average age of death for those who had their first birthday in 1901 was almost 70? What, wasn't everyone who turned 1 in 1901 born in 1900? Yes, but not everyone who was born in 1900 made it to their first birthday. Likewise in the early days of installing the cannabis distribution chain lots and lots of really crappy pot was proffered for sale. I submit that removing the lousy ditchweed from the averages had much the same effect as removing the infants that died in 1900 had in that deceptive statistic.

Then there's seeds. The pot we got back then was 1/3 to 1/2 seed by weight. If you have 1/2 bag of 15% cannabis and 1/2 bag of seeds and stems and analyze the whole bag you get 7.5% by weight. Today's 15% cannabis is exactly the same as far as the product is concerned as that 15% cannabis that came in 'officially' as 7.5%.

Are we living longer than people that turned 1 in 1900? Yes, but not by almost 3 decades, more like 7 or 8 years, and even that can be explained by people not dying at a young age, and pulling down the statistical average.

Averages deceive, and people decieve with averages.
 
B

Blue Dot

I recall a particular bag of Panama Red I copped in 1979. Ended up landing at this eccentric fellow's home, a bonafide Addams Family mansion complete with cobwebs and a suit of armor and other medieval decor. We smoked a few hits of that Panama Red and he put Gregorian chants on the stereo.

There are lots of ways to deceive with averages. The old saw is there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm sure most reading this have heard that the average age of death in the US for people born in 1900 was in the low 40s. But did you know that the average age of death for those who had their first birthday in 1901 was almost 70? What, wasn't everyone who turned 1 in 1901 born in 1900? Yes, but not everyone who was born in 1900 made it to their first birthday. Likewise in the early days of installing the cannabis distribution chain lots and lots of really crappy pot was proffered for sale. I submit that removing the lousy ditchweed from the averages had much the same effect as removing the infants that died in 1900 had in that deceptive statistic.

Then there's seeds. The pot we got back then was 1/3 to 1/2 seed by weight. If you have 1/2 bag of 15% cannabis and 1/2 bag of seeds and stems and analyze the whole bag you get 7.5% by weight. Today's 15% cannabis is exactly the same as far as the product is concerned as that 15% cannabis that came in 'officially' as 7.5%.

Are we living longer than people that turned 1 in 1900? Yes, but not by almost 3 decades, more like 7 or 8 years, and even that can be explained by people not dying at a young age, and pulling down the statistical average.

Averages deceive, and people decieve with averages.

Wow, I actually agree with pyth.

I took a fair bit of statistics in college because it was very interesting to me and I can concur that it really is unbelievable the ways statistics can be interpreted.

Statistics are actually VERY useful when used correctly but the problem is the majority of the population, including the media, does not know how to use them correctly.
 

dc2bar

Member
Wow, I actually agree with pyth.

I took a fair bit of statistics in college because it was very interesting to me and I can concur that it really is unbelievable the ways statistics can be interpreted.

Statistics are actually VERY useful when used correctly but the problem is the majority of the population, including the media, does not know how to use them correctly.


"Torture numbers long enough and they'll tell you anything you want"
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top