565 marijuana plants seized; 4 arrested

565 marijuana plants seized; 4 arrested

There are 159 comments on the The Ukiah Daily Journal story from Mar 3, 2010, titled 565 marijuana plants seized; 4 arrested. In it, The Ukiah Daily Journal reports that:

The County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team with help from the Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force seized 565 marijuana plants when raiding a home Thursday in the 2500 block of Black Hawk Drive, Willits.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Ukiah Daily Journal.

Legalize it

Oakland, CA

#123 Mar 10, 2010
The Porcupine wrote:
At a time of widespread economic crisis it is a shame to see the limited resources of local law enforcement used in the eradication of this supposed evil plant.
Here, Here!

“Illegitimati non carborundum”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#124 Mar 10, 2010
Willits Watcher wrote:
<quoted text>
Three questions.
1.) Are you aware of the damage being done to the health, educations and futures of millions of children across the US by marijuana?
2.) How would we tax something that is legal and can be grown anywhere?
3.) Why would you expect drug dealers, who make piles of money by breaking laws, to obey regulations?
1.) No...I am not aware of any damage to kids from cannabis. Please show us this data to prove this point. No data...no proof.

2.) You oonly tax what is sold. nnot what is grown. That is common sense.

3.) Those piles of money wouldn't exist because the profit for growing woould no longer be there if cannabis was legalized. They would be put out of business. Once again...common sense.
Legalize it

Oakland, CA

#125 Mar 10, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't start with me. I will answer your questions hopefully to shut you up.
1.) Of course kids using drugs hurt them. Look at what is happening now. It is mostly illegal and kids still use it. What are we going to do? Make it MORE illegal?
It is up to the parents to educate their kids, not laws. Why do you trust the govn't to teach our kids ethics? All more laws will do is teach parents to pass responsibility of raising kids to the govn't. It is time we take the responsibility of raising our kids back from the govn't. Not give them more control.
2.) How do we tax Tobacco? Avocados? Hops? Don't ask the question if it makes you look like an idiot.
3.) Why can't you people grasp this concept! Criminals won't stop being criminals if pot is legal!!! That is my point! Criminals will still want to make lots of money and will still break the law to make it. Legalizing pot won't reduce crime. Only move it to another area.
I have a hard time with point number three in your argument/response to Willits Watcher as you may have assessed in our previous dialogue. First, while the growing of Marijuana is currently illegal it hasn't always been that way. Two, your implied assessment that all people who currently cultivate marijuana would continue to break the law by some other means if marijuana was legalized is flawed. To make a hasty generalization such as lumping all people together who grow marijuana as criminals or that they would continue criminal activity after legalization is easy and lacks critical thinking. I look forward to your analytical response.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#126 Mar 10, 2010
Legalize it wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a hard time with point number three in your argument/response to Willits Watcher as you may have assessed in our previous dialogue. First, while the growing of Marijuana is currently illegal it hasn't always been that way. Two, your implied assessment that all people who currently cultivate marijuana would continue to break the law by some other means if marijuana was legalized is flawed. To make a hasty generalization such as lumping all people together who grow marijuana as criminals or that they would continue criminal activity after legalization is easy and lacks critical thinking. I look forward to your analytical response.
I have no problem with people growing a few plants for personal use. And I was making a few assumptions. I don't think that everyone that grows pot is a criminal. I hope we can agree that those that grow hundreds of plants and sells it for a profit is a criminal as their main goal is making money not growing some for personal use.

My main thing is to look at stuff reasonably.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#128 Mar 11, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple answer for you. Sometimes the Feds know their place and let states rights stand, as they should.
In reality, read the 14th Amendment. You aren't arguing with me. You are arguing with the 14th Amendment. Read it. Don't come back to me if you don't understand.
No sir, i understand your point, its just not valid.
Read the 10th amendment, when you understand that come back to the argument.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#129 Mar 11, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No sir, i understand your point, its just not valid.
Read the 10th amendment, when you understand that come back to the argument.
Hey I am all with you. I believe in states rights and I believe that the 10th and 14th amendments are contradictory. When the 14th amendment was passed Patrick Henry turned over in his grave. I don't agree with the 14th amendment but as far as Federal law trumping State law see Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

I would love to see the federal govn't leave states alone. I think that the courts have been ignoring the 10th amendment. They are using the interstate commerce clause also to invade states rights.

I don't think it is right and I don't think they should invade states rights, but they do.

Congratulations on your research. I love it when people look into the Constitution. Keep reading it and see what the progressives are doing to our country. Also if you want to see the intent behind the constitution read the Federalist papers. It was written by some of the Founding Fathers.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#130 Mar 11, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No sir, i understand your point, its just not valid.
Read the 10th amendment, when you understand that come back to the argument.
If you want to see a real atrocity against the Constitution read Wickard v. Filburn. You will see how perverted the courts have become.

This guy 1942 wasn't allowed to grow a personal stash of WHEAT because of how it would affect interstate commerce. He didn't even want to sell it.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#131 Mar 11, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey I am all with you. I believe in states rights and I believe that the 10th and 14th amendments are contradictory. When the 14th amendment was passed Patrick Henry turned over in his grave. I don't agree with the 14th amendment but as far as Federal law trumping State law see Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
I would love to see the federal govn't leave states alone. I think that the courts have been ignoring the 10th amendment. They are using the interstate commerce clause also to invade states rights.
I don't think it is right and I don't think they should invade states rights, but they do.
Congratulations on your research. I love it when people look into the Constitution. Keep reading it and see what the progressives are doing to our country. Also if you want to see the intent behind the constitution read the Federalist papers. It was written by some of the Founding Fathers.
I grew up in DC, i own copies and have read the federalist papers.
The 10th and 14th are not contradictory, the feds have a right to control interstate commerce, and the states have the right to only enforce their own laws. Federal law, law enforcement, and federal courts are completely separate from state courts and laws. Apples and oranges.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#132 Mar 11, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to see a real atrocity against the Constitution read Wickard v. Filburn. You will see how perverted the courts have become.
This guy 1942 wasn't allowed to grow a personal stash of WHEAT because of how it would affect interstate commerce. He didn't even want to sell it.
Yes, and by not buying it, he affected, minutely, the price of wheat nationally. Same premise as Gonzales v Riecht

"Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause."

Note the the court decision says "regulate", not ban.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#133 Mar 11, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I grew up in DC, i own copies and have read the federalist papers.
The 10th and 14th are not contradictory, the feds have a right to control interstate commerce, and the states have the right to only enforce their own laws. Federal law, law enforcement, and federal courts are completely separate from state courts and laws. Apples and oranges.
No NO NO NO NO!

Come on!

In the Constitution it uses the word "regulate". In the time of the writing of the constitution the definition was
"to make regular".
YOU HAVE NOT READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, or you didn't understand them. It goes over in detail the reasoning behind making commerce regular between the states.

All that taken into account, DID YOU READ THE CASE Wickard v. Filburn?

The person was not going to sell ANYTHING! He was using his wheat for his own purpose of feeding chickens. There was no interstate commerce occurring. How did the govn't get the powers to control him?

DId you read the decision on Brown VS. board of education? The Federal laws CLEARLY superseded the State laws.

Whether or not it SUPPOSED to happen it DID happen.
I know that there are things that are SUPPOSED to happen. That doesn't mean that they WILL happen.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#134 Mar 11, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and by not buying it, he affected, minutely, the price of wheat nationally. Same premise as Gonzales v Riecht
"Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause."
Note the the court decision says "regulate", not ban.
OK. You growing a single tomato plant has an effect on the price of tomatos. You are in agreement that the govn't should ban all vegetable gardens due to the possibility that prices cpould be effected??

You are completely ignorant and short sighted. I was hoping you might support individual liberty and freedom. Obviously you want complete govn't control.

I am wasting my time with you.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#135 Mar 12, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
No NO NO NO NO!
Come on!
In the Constitution it uses the word "regulate". In the time of the writing of the constitution the definition was
"to make regular".
YOU HAVE NOT READ THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, or you didn't understand them. It goes over in detail the reasoning behind making commerce regular between the states.
All that taken into account, DID YOU READ THE CASE Wickard v. Filburn?
The person was not going to sell ANYTHING! He was using his wheat for his own purpose of feeding chickens. There was no interstate commerce occurring. How did the govn't get the powers to control him?
DId you read the decision on Brown VS. board of education? The Federal laws CLEARLY superseded the State laws.
Whether or not it SUPPOSED to happen it DID happen.
I know that there are things that are SUPPOSED to happen. That doesn't mean that they WILL happen.
By not selling, and consuming or using it for animal feed he did not have to purchase said wheat, and said wheat never made it into the sales stream . That did affect commerce, even though it was minutely. Therefor able to be regulated by the Feds. Brown V Board of Education had to do with state law confounding the FEDERALLY protected civil rights of African Americans. Apples and Oranges. Pretty sure it is you that doesn't understand the law, or the history, or the Federalist papers.
All Federal and State and Local law must first meet the test of not violating ANY amendment to the Federal Constitution.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#136 Mar 12, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. You growing a single tomato plant has an effect on the price of tomatos. You are in agreement that the govn't should ban all vegetable gardens due to the possibility that prices cpould be effected??
You are completely ignorant and short sighted. I was hoping you might support individual liberty and freedom. Obviously you want complete govn't control.
I am wasting my time with you.
My growing a tomato plant DOES impact commerce and as such is regulated by the Feds
The federal government does in fact control Agriculture. Ever here of the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Forestry Etc Etc. Ever hear of Farm subsidies?
You are an ignorant Tea Bagger and obviously you need to take a few classes in American history, and Civics
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#137 Mar 12, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. You growing a single tomato plant has an effect on the price of tomatos. You are in agreement that the govn't should ban all vegetable gardens due to the possibility that prices cpould be effected??
You are completely ignorant and short sighted. I was hoping you might support individual liberty and freedom. Obviously you want complete govn't control.
I am wasting my time with you.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdahome

Learn to read, then work on COMPREHENSION.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#138 Mar 12, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. You growing a single tomato plant has an effect on the price of tomatos. You are in agreement that the govn't should ban all vegetable gardens due to the possibility that prices cpould be effected??
You are completely ignorant and short sighted. I was hoping you might support individual liberty and freedom. Obviously you want complete govn't control.
I am wasting my time with you.
PS
You are what is know as " functionally illiterate".

Read and learn:


Affected vs Effected

Affected Effected
Meaning: impacted, created an effect on. executed, brought about, produced something. hide

Affected and Effected are both verb forms.

When used as a verb, effect means to execute, produce, or accomplish something. For example, The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that restricted the freedom of the people.

On the other hand, affect in its verb form means to impact. For example, Carbon di-oxide emissions affect the environment.

So we can say that "The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that affected the freedom of the people."

Tip

You can affect something that already exists; but when you effect (verb form) something, you usually bring it into existence.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#139 Mar 12, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
PS
You are what is know as " functionally illiterate".
Read and learn:
Affected vs Effected
Affected Effected
Meaning: impacted, created an effect on. executed, brought about, produced something. hide
Affected and Effected are both verb forms.
When used as a verb, effect means to execute, produce, or accomplish something. For example, The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that restricted the freedom of the people.
On the other hand, affect in its verb form means to impact. For example, Carbon di-oxide emissions affect the environment.
So we can say that "The dictatorial regime quickly effected changes to the constitution that affected the freedom of the people."
Tip
You can affect something that already exists; but when you effect (verb form) something, you usually bring it into existence.
I don't agree with anything you have said previously. However I have been meaning to look up the info for Affected vs Effected for a while. Thanks.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#140 Mar 12, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
My growing a tomato plant DOES impact commerce and as such is regulated by the Feds
The federal government does in fact control Agriculture. Ever here of the Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Forestry Etc Etc. Ever hear of Farm subsidies?
You are an ignorant Tea Bagger and obviously you need to take a few classes in American history, and Civics
Sigh. OK. What you are saying is the point I am trying to make. The Feds have claimed powers that weren't given to them by the 10th amendment. Where doe the constitution give them the power to control agriculture?

Look at the definition of "regulate" as it was defined during the founding fathers time. It didn't mean to control. It meant "to make regular". The govn't is supposed to stop states from imposing duties and taxes on interstate trade.

"Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Forestry Etc Etc. Ever hear of Farm subsidies" all exert powers not given to them by the Constitution.

Yes I am one of those "tea baggers". I believe in small govn't that will stay out of our lives. Although I have been a Libertarian alot longer than the tea bag party has existed.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
--Patrick Henry

Why do you WANT the govn't to control my vegetable garden?

How can you agree with the govn't controlling what I do down to the vegetable I grow?

We will never see eye to eye. You like and want govn't control. That is fine. I personally want to be free from the govn't telling me what to do.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#141 Mar 12, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
By not selling, and consuming or using it for animal feed he did not have to purchase said wheat, and said wheat never made it into the sales stream . That did affect commerce, even though it was minutely. Therefor able to be regulated by the Feds. Brown V Board of Education had to do with state law confounding the FEDERALLY protected civil rights of African Americans. Apples and Oranges. Pretty sure it is you that doesn't understand the law, or the history, or the Federalist papers.
All Federal and State and Local law must first meet the test of not violating ANY amendment to the Federal Constitution.
"Brown V Board of Education had to do with state law confounding the FEDERALLY protected civil rights of African Americans." Correct. The federal law superseded the State law.

Federal civil rights are law.

The states laws said something different than federal law. The feds forced the state law to change.

That was a result of the 14th amendment. Previous to the 14th amendment the 10th amendment gave the states the power to discriminate.

Previously to the 14th amendment the constitution only bound the federal govn't. If a state wanted to restrict free speech it was allowed to. So long as the feds weren't doing it. Previous to the 14th amendment the states weren't bound by the constitution.

That is why I say that the 14th amendment is partially in conflict with the 10th amendment. The 14th amendment limited the power of the 10th amendment by binding the states to give constitutionally protected rights to their citizens as well. Limiting not only the federal govn't but the state and local govn't also.
anonymous

Eureka, CA

#142 Mar 12, 2010
Why not get real wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh. OK. What you are saying is the point I am trying to make. The Feds have claimed powers that weren't given to them by the 10th amendment. Where doe the constitution give them the power to control agriculture?
Look at the definition of "regulate" as it was defined during the founding fathers time. It didn't mean to control. It meant "to make regular". The govn't is supposed to stop states from imposing duties and taxes on interstate trade.
"Dept of Agriculture, the Dept of Forestry Etc Etc. Ever hear of Farm subsidies" all exert powers not given to them by the Constitution.
Yes I am one of those "tea baggers". I believe in small govn't that will stay out of our lives. Although I have been a Libertarian alot longer than the tea bag party has existed.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
--Patrick Henry
Why do you WANT the govn't to control my vegetable garden?
How can you agree with the govn't controlling what I do down to the vegetable I grow?
We will never see eye to eye. You like and want govn't control. That is fine. I personally want to be free from the govn't telling me what to do.
I never want you to be able to grow GMO anything...ever and with out govt, you "tea baggers" would. And then serve them on an asbestos plate.

“Alius bardus latin laudo”

Since: Nov 08

Jackson St Forest, CA

#143 Mar 12, 2010
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I never want you to be able to grow GMO anything...ever and with out govt, you "tea baggers" would. And then serve them on an asbestos plate.
Hmmm.OK.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Colfax Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Disillusioned with Child Protective Services in... (Jun '06) 1 hr Angry 85
News Man Arrested After Domestic Violence and Pursuit Aug 18 Bradleyjacksonisa... 3
golf cart Aug 9 Vic and Libby 1
Good R_ox y, o_xy,cm-arijuana,t-ar,he-roin,o_xy... Aug 4 Ashley 2
News Giving driver's licenses to those here illegall... Jul 26 spud 8
News David Ryland: Centennial Reservoir Project a ba... (Apr '16) Apr '16 Julie Jane 1
News New school board trustee selected, seated durin... (Oct '15) Oct '15 LaTricia 2

Colfax Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Colfax Mortgages