By Logan Brandon • Sports Editor • 

Cannabis industry among bright spots in county economy

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .

Comments

Jim

Just what I like to see in a newspaper the dope business being promoted. Not!

Lulu

Jim, I hate to break this to you, but it's legal.

scooter

Jim,

I thought you were the one that wanted more Ag & "good paying jobs" in the local market? Now you're wanting to pick and choose which Ag crops are acceptable in Yamhill County?

Did you know the avg bud tender makes 25-40% more than a combine or swather driver in today's market? The more you know....

Jim

I don’t consider growing dope Ag and I don’t care if it’s legal I don’t have to like it. There are just some things I don’t agree with and like everybody else in America I’m voicing my opinion.

treefarmer


Jim - I am not sure what you read in this article that gave you the impression it was promoting the industry. It just seemed informational to me.

Some farmers grow grapes which can be dried into raisins, or fermented to make wine. Some farmers grow grains that can be ground to make bread or fermented to make whiskey. Some farmers grow cannabis which can be made into medicines or processed for recreational use. Even though these are agricultural products being grown legally, of course you have every right to dislike any or all of these crops. Or to characterize marijuana as “dope” if that is how you see it. We are all guaranteed free speech. That does not change the fact that agriculture provides jobs and contributes to our economy. What a relief that no one is forced to consume something they find repugnant, and someone who values the medicinal qualities of an herbal remedy cannot be denied access to it.

Jim

Treefarmer I suppose next thing is growing Coca plants and declare them an agricultural crop too. They could market cocaine in cannabis shops and the state could rake in a lot more tax money. Here does it end?

treefarmer


Jim - I think there are legitimate medical applications for cocaine, but I take your point. I would not want to see the drug marketed either. (Nor would I welcome poppy fields and the sale of heroin.) I simply do not see cannabis as a dangerous substance. In fact, I believe alcohol creates much greater harm to the population than marijuana ever will. Again, I respect that we all have our own opinions informed by our own experience and our own personal beliefs.

Lulu

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but didn't Jesus, that famous dipsomaniac and transubstantiator, turn the water into wine?

Shasta

Jim,
Do you also oppose the farmers who grow hops. You drink beer yes? Many more crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol than pot. It must be exhausting trying to find the negative in every article published here. Why bother reading this publication?

RobsNewsRegister

I still don't understand why other small businesses weren't allowed to operate as "safely as possible". If these folks could manage, why do we think others couldn't have? It will be years before we know the full financial toll, but the small business owners not declared 'essential' took, and are taking, a tremendous financial hit. Look what just happened to those in Multnomah county preparing to open at the last minute forced to stop. Restaurants had ordered food etc.

Pedro

I agree with you Jim it's discouraging to have "local journalism) give the industry and kind of attention. We can do better for our families and for our children. This is just one article and study that show marijuana impaired driving has doubled since legalization that's just one study in one state. I don't care if people want to do drugs but their choice should never affect others and if they do the consequences should be significant.
And Lulu just because something is legal doesn't mean it is right. If you want to make that argument the argument cuts both ways and I don't think you'd be willing to apply it consistently .

Lulu

And tell me, Pedro, who decides what is "right"? You?

tagup

Beware of people that claim to be morally “right”......they have an agenda....

RobsNewsRegister

Pedro has a very good point on using marijuana and driving. I still remember the year Oregon voted to legalize the drug (2014). On Halloween night , right before the vote, an impaired driver killed a kid in Vancouver but The news didn't say right away what he was on. It was marijuana.

I remember being suspicious seeing the story prior to the election but the news not mentioning what he took - my suspicions were later confirmed. Of course, since we use mail-in, the fact it was marijuana came too late to influence the vote. This is why conservatives believe there is bias in the media. They appear to suppress news that conflicts with what they support - in this case the legalization of marijuana. This independent libertarian sees their point.

https://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/2014/11/vancouver_driver_smoked_mariju.html

Lulu

Rob, by your reasoning, why not return to Prohibition since it worked so seamlessly before?

RobsNewsRegister

At what point in my post did I say that marijuana should be illegal?

tagup

Rob, people were using Marijuana long before it was legalized...and implying one incident would have changed the election outcome is a pretty long reach...
Maybe the blood test wasn’t complete or hadn’t been released by the DA....seems like a number of reasons could have caused the late reporting...But claiming media bias always sounds good in the echo chamber....

RobsNewsRegister

>Maybe the blood test wasn’t complete or hadn’t been released by the DA

It still wasn't complete at the time of this story - "Toxicology results for Abbott are still pending..."

Also in the story - "A Vancouver police officer smelled marijuana on Abbott's breath as he was talking to him on the night of the crash" That could be have been reported immediately. reporters don't wait for a toxicology test when they initially report a suspected drunk driver. I remember this well - it was on the news every night. The accident happened on a Friday night - they didn't mention this until Tuesday (election day).

I don't think it is a stretch to assume it could have affected the outcome of the vote - at the time one of the greatest concerns over legalizing marijuana was people driving high.

tagup

The measure passed with 56% of the vote....nearly 185k more yes votes than no votes....

RobsNewsRegister

True, it would have been a stretch, half of those votes would have needed to switch and/or others get off the fence and vote. But remember, Oregon's measure 80 had failed just two years prior (when Washington's passed).

I can think of nothing that could have given pause more to those filling out their ballots that weekend than the death of a little girl and injuries to her mother and six year old friend/mother on Halloween night from a high driver across the river in an adjacent state where marijuana was legal. My beef is with the 'news organizations' who didn't answer the first question on many minds at the time, what was he high on?

tagup

And how would the news organizations do that without toxicology results?....

RobsNewsRegister

In the article I cited (see link below) they stated "A Vancouver police officer smelled marijuana on Abbott's breath as he was talking to him on the night of the crash" and then "Toxicology results for Abbott are still pending"

Therefore, the toxicology results still weren't in at the time of this article (11/4). The accident was 10-31. Maybe they waited for the affidavit and it took that long but I don't think they do that for drivers impaired with alcohol because they seem report that immediately on nightly newscasts and/or the next day.

https://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/2014/11/vancouver_driver_smoked_mariju.html

tagup

I think the turnaround time for a breathalyzer is much quicker than a toxicology test for other drugs. That may explain some of the reporting you remember....I’m sure with a fatality involved, the authorities were likely keeping a lid on the information.

Seem to me that it would have been premature to report that the accident was definitely a result of marajuana intoxication when those facts were not yet available...the driver could have been under the influence of many things that were contributing factors. What you call media bias, appears to me as prudent reporting by not jumping to a conclusion that may have come back later as inaccurate.

RobsNewsRegister

I would totally agree with what you're saying if the toxicology results had come in and then this story came out on 11-4-14 but they were still pending when this story hit. That said, I do agree that breathalyzers etc. are far better defined than impairment from cannabis. I'm not even sure how exactly they measure that.

Web Design and Web Development by Buildable