Marijuana's hidden price: Environmental impact

backtracker

Well-Known Member
"It's just a plant" is a common refrain from those who want to legalize the leaf, but a recent study of cannabis production argues that the environmental impact of marijuana farming must be considered -- especially as more states move toward further legalization this election season.

The study was conducted by Jake Brenner, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Ithaca College, and Van Bustic, a specialist at the University of California Cooperative Extension. It was published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study also highlights the lack of published, peer-reviewed empirical research on all aspects of cannabis agriculture, which is already a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States despite still being listed as a Schedule 1 drug by the federal government.

Location, location

The amount of land and water used for growing cannabis has not traditionally been a concern, especially when compared to other agricultural products grown in California. But where the cannabis is grown has potential ecological consequences.

Brenner and Bustic examined grow sites in three northern California counties and found that their usual placement had potentially negative impacts on two threatened fish species.

That's because the sites are typically placed on remote plots of land in forested areas, many on steep slopes. Access roads need to be created and swaths of land cleared for production, regardless of whether the cannabis is grown outdoors or in a greenhouse; that increases potential for soil erosion and chemical run-off into streams in which the Chinook salmon and steelhead trout live.

The fish are also susceptible to harm from a decrease in water flow as a result of the cannabis agriculture.

"Siting grows in areas with better access to roads, gentler slopes, and ample water resources could significantly reduce threats to the environment," Brenner and Bustic write. "Future cannabis policy should take into consideration the potential for mitigating environmental impacts through land-use planning."

Know before you grow

Brenner and Bustic say their study, which covers the watersheds of northern California's Humbolt County, is an example of the sort of survey and analysis that could be done -- and is necessary -- anywhere cannabis agriculture takes place.

And while California is taking efforts to encourage local governments to create land-use policies for cannabis agriculture, they argue that more research on marijuana farming needs to be done.

"Land-use science on cannabis agriculture lags behind research on other crops, but advances in the field will be crucial for predicting future cannabis expansion and moderating its impacts," they write.

That multi-billion marijuana production industry is only going to grow: This November, voters in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada will decide whether to allow their states to legalize and tax recreational marijuana; while voters in Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota will head to the polls to determine whether their states will allow medicinal uses of marijuana, joining the 25 other states that already do so.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Ithaca College
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
kind of ...silly...growing pot is bad for the environment because nute run off and diverted water threatens fish?
why would growers hike into remote areas when they can grow where they like legally?
sounds like the hidden price is being caused more by the Luddite moralist who oppose legalization than by the growers who are forced into stealth guerilla grows by these oppressive politics.
and exactly what grower is creating an "access road" ?.....if they're being forced into guerilla grows, thats page one of the handbook...don't make an access road leading to your patch.....
swathes of land cleared for cultivation....most guerilla patches i've ever seen have been smaller than 100 x 100 feet, and they try to clear as little as possible so they aren't obvious to every heloicopter and plane that flies over.
so 100x100 qualifies as a "swath"......always wondered about that.......
this sounds like the typical bullshit the opposition puts out to try to make our side look bad...
 

backtracker

Well-Known Member
kind of ...silly...growing pot is bad for the environment because nute run off and diverted water threatens fish?
why would growers hike into remote areas when they can grow where they like legally?
sounds like the hidden price is being caused more by the Luddite moralist who oppose legalization than by the growers who are forced into stealth guerilla grows by these oppressive politics.
and exactly what grower is creating an "access road" ?.....if they're being forced into guerilla grows, thats page one of the handbook...don't make an access road leading to your patch.....
swathes of land cleared for cultivation....most guerilla patches i've ever seen have been smaller than 100 x 100 feet, and they try to clear as little as possible so they aren't obvious to every heloicopter and plane that flies over.
so 100x100 qualifies as a "swath"......always wondered about that.......
this sounds like the typical bullshit the opposition puts out to try to make our side look bad...
I live here and it's not somebody growing 10-20 plants it's Mexican cartels growing tens of thousands,(Humboldt county took 200,000 plants off of national forests this year) they smuggle pesticides in from Mexico that are banned here, they use poison to kill anything that would eat their plants in the process killing pine martens, owls, hawks, fox, coyotes and eagles. They take water from streams that are home to endangered fish and leave none for downstream users. They are the worst of the worst not someone you would want to run into on a hike through the woods. In Trinity county you can go on Google and see where people have illegally graded roods and pads into steep mountain sides causing erosion. This year in the county I live in they have found grows of 20,000+ plants, 5000-7000 plants is common and this goes on all summer, they don't even mess with the little stuff because they don't have the staff or the money. It's out of control and it's fucking up a lot of very beautiful land they are stealing water that belongs to all of us and we should all be outraged.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
that doesn't seem to be what the article was implying. it very much seemed to be pointing at small time growers.
if the problem is that bad, i'd say call out the military and take them out. police and park rangers aren't trained and equipped to deal with armed guerillas willing to ambush them in the woods, with the exception of small trained response units.
or as Vn says, just wake the fuck up and legalize it all over the world. not much profit in stripping mountainsides and trucking in pesticides when people will just grow their own
 

A.K.A. Overgrowem

Well-Known Member
Think I've got it. Growers should feel guilt bordering on a suicidal urge because our government embraces the policy a racist, criminal, politician, thought, 50 years ago, would win some elections.
 
Last edited:

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
i quit feeling guilt about what our government does when i realized its not "our" government. it's supposed to be "by the people, for the people"...thats a load of hot bullshit. the law is written to be as convoluted and confusing as possible, so you need a lawyer to understand most of it....because it was written by lawyers, who want you to need a lawyer to understand it....lets go back to the code of Hamurabi, bet there'd be a lot of one eyed, one handed lawyers
 

TWS

Well-Known Member
true, but the water these guys use is from streams that use to have fish in them. My problem is with the destruction they cause and the polluted water.
Shit the state all ready cut the food farmers off in the valley cause of the shadow. You cant blame the pot farmers and most have a better conscious than Boxer or Finesteine did,.
 

backtracker

Well-Known Member
Shit the state all ready cut the food farmers off in the valley cause of the shadow. You cant blame the pot farmers and most have a better conscious than Boxer or Finesteine did,.
got no problem with the responsible folks just the rip rape and run guys. hell they're pumping the valley so hard that the land has sunk over 30 feet in some areas just to grow cotton and alfalfa that goes to China..
 

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
^ they wouldnt be doing all the shit you are talking about if it werent fucking illegal.....price wouldnt be that high to support it.....
just good to think about our impact , some do damage thats not a legalization issue that's an environmental one. good to be aware of but used to continue prohibition.
"It's just a plant" is a common refrain from those who want to legalize the leaf, but a recent study of cannabis production argues that the environmental impact of marijuana farming must be considered -- especially as more states move toward further legalization this election season.

The study was conducted by Jake Brenner, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Ithaca College, and Van Bustic, a specialist at the University of California Cooperative Extension. It was published earlier this year in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The study also highlights the lack of published, peer-reviewed empirical research on all aspects of cannabis agriculture, which is already a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States despite still being listed as a Schedule 1 drug by the federal government.

Location, location

The amount of land and water used for growing cannabis has not traditionally been a concern, especially when compared to other agricultural products grown in California. But where the cannabis is grown has potential ecological consequences.

Brenner and Bustic examined grow sites in three northern California counties and found that their usual placement had potentially negative impacts on two threatened fish species.

That's because the sites are typically placed on remote plots of land in forested areas, many on steep slopes. Access roads need to be created and swaths of land cleared for production, regardless of whether the cannabis is grown outdoors or in a greenhouse; that increases potential for soil erosion and chemical run-off into streams in which the Chinook salmon and steelhead trout live.

The fish are also susceptible to harm from a decrease in water flow as a result of the cannabis agriculture.

"Siting grows in areas with better access to roads, gentler slopes, and ample water resources could significantly reduce threats to the environment," Brenner and Bustic write. "Future cannabis policy should take into consideration the potential for mitigating environmental impacts through land-use planning."

Know before you grow

Brenner and Bustic say their study, which covers the watersheds of northern California's Humbolt County, is an example of the sort of survey and analysis that could be done -- and is necessary -- anywhere cannabis agriculture takes place.

And while California is taking efforts to encourage local governments to create land-use policies for cannabis agriculture, they argue that more research on marijuana farming needs to be done.

"Land-use science on cannabis agriculture lags behind research on other crops, but advances in the field will be crucial for predicting future cannabis expansion and moderating its impacts," they write.

That multi-billion marijuana production industry is only going to grow: This November, voters in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada will decide whether to allow their states to legalize and tax recreational marijuana; while voters in Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota will head to the polls to determine whether their states will allow medicinal uses of marijuana, joining the 25 other states that already do so.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Ithaca College
 

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
^ they wouldnt be doing all the shit you are talking about if it werent fucking illegal.....price wouldnt be that high to support it.....
watch quality thin out and price bounce then stay 10- 20 a g.
Medicinal for the nation keep big tabacoo out and big pharma in check
 

esh dov ets

Well-Known Member
kind of ...silly...growing pot is bad for the environment because nute run off and diverted water threatens fish?
why would growers hike into remote areas when they can grow where they like legally?
sounds like the hidden price is being caused more by the Luddite moralist who oppose legalization than by the growers who are forced into stealth guerilla grows by these oppressive politics.
and exactly what grower is creating an "access road" ?.....if they're being forced into guerilla grows, thats page one of the handbook...don't make an access road leading to your patch.....
swathes of land cleared for cultivation....most guerilla patches i've ever seen have been smaller than 100 x 100 feet, and they try to clear as little as possible so they aren't obvious to every heloicopter and plane that flies over.
so 100x100 qualifies as a "swath"......always wondered about that.......
this sounds like the typical bullshit the opposition puts out to try to make our side look bad...
just responding to the title of the thread . what about how guano is sourced or peat. things of that nature.?.
 

Nugachino

Well-Known Member
We've got pine forests here. They sit growing for years only to be cut down and leave a garish plot of stumps behind.

If the industry wasn't so set on growing those trees. And it didn't cost what it does to change to a more sustainable crop, i.e: hemp.

They could turn over a plot of land twice a year and make shit loads more money. With something that takes less time and effort. Not to mention resources.
 
Top