A picture’s worth…

Earlier, some commenters were speculating regarding how many plants you could grow in a 25′ square plot, as allowed in Prop 19.

Well, if you grow them like Kangativa does in Australia, you couldn’t even fit one!

Via Toke of the Town, where we learn that these plants grow up to 18 feet tall and yield up to 10 pounds.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to A picture’s worth…

  1. Shap says:


    saw this story on CNN and wished Schwarzenegger had been shot by an angry audience member. He said that no one cares if people smoke pot. Yea except those uniformed men and women in blue who arrested what 60,000 people or whatever the number was in California last year. I get that it’s now just a fine without arrest but something tells me they’ll be cutting a shitload of tickets. Ughhhh what fucking planet does he live on

  2. Chris says:

    We had to give some speeches about the future in my english class last day of school. Someone talked about each of us in the class in their speech and said I would go on some late night talk show and be famous for growing the world’s tallest marijuana plant. At the time I was just confused because I had never smoked weed and didn’t hang out with anyone who did, so I don’t know why they would think that. They apparently knew more about me than I did.

  3. darkcycle says:

    “Day of the Triffids” All the old goats ‘ill know what I’m talking about.

  4. Maria says:

    Not just the old goats. That’s a classic that is.

    And those plants are wonderful!

  5. claygooding says:

    I never saw if the measurement of your garden was the
    planted area or the canopy. It would be very defining to know which the law would measure.
    And you know if no standard was set state wide,every town
    would change from one or the other,depending on their DA’s and police preference.
    If the tilled area,4 of those would just about take care
    me for a year,,,,,,tee hee,actually one would leave me over 5 lbs excess.

  6. Matthew Meyer says:

    >I never saw if the measurement of your garden was the
    planted area or the canopy.

    Yeah, I sorta wondered about that myself.

    And what’s “25 square feet” anyway? Could I do a stack of indoor beds, three high and 5 x 5?

    Gosh, I’m so glad we don’t have to face such tough questions just yet.

  7. claygooding says:

    An indoor grow box 8′ wide,3′ deep and 8′ tall.
    A shelf inside at the 3′ level for cloning/vegetation on bottom and the top 5′ for flowering.

    Would take care of 2 to 3 adults and maybe more,depending on user habits.

    And we will have to ponder these questions one day.

  8. Chris says:

    I never thought about the grow limits of prop 19 for more than necessary. If you actually require more than the allowed amount, just pony up for the <$100 medicinal permission slip to grow more, then use prop 19's limits to store an unlimited amount in your house.

  9. DdC says:

    Spotlight On The Marijuana Industry
    Five young trimmers sit out on the deck, surrounded by buds, sunlight and the open air of Southern Humboldt. The scene is set nicely for local filmmaker Mikal Jakubal, who is intent on capturing a slice of life within Humboldt County’s marijuana industry.

    Five young trimmers sit out on the deck.jpg

    To find out more about the documentary, go to http://www.onegoodyear.com.

    For three generations, the black-market marijuana economy has shaped nearly every aspect of life in Humboldt County, California. One Good Year, a documentary currently in production, takes an intimate look into the Humboldt County pot farming and back-to-the-land lifestyle.

  10. allan420 says:

    I’m telling you folks… they’ve developed a sequoia – cannabis cross! It grows 200 feet or taller… imagine the haul from that… if you can wait 300 years for it to mature that is.

    In one of my trips around rural Thailand I remember seeing a bungalow on stilts (to keep the snakes and water out) with a crop of ganja growing next to it. They were taller than the 2nd floor front porch. And oh, so robust! At $5 kilo it had to be one of the best buys on the planet at the time.

    I had friends who went to the trouble of getting 25 lbs of gooey Thai stick on base because they thought their unit (and all of their equipment) was going back to the states. When they went permanent we had to sneak all that bud back to town – and then somebody had to smoke it (several sombodies actually;)! The sacrifices we have to make sometimes…

    This country needs to smoke a bowl…

  11. ezrydn says:

    Do people here know the difference between “square” and “cubic?” I’m beginning to doubt it. One square foot, laid end to end and hydro-cultivated would be 25 square feet and you could have one plant per squate foot. Some tend to get locked into the word “square” and think all the feet have to be within it. Not so. A 1’X 25′ area would still come to 25 sq. feet. 25 Sq. feet is a flat projection. Add height and you move into the “cubic” projection. So, to follow the law, you can’t enter the 3rd part of the equasion.

  12. claygooding says:

    In Nam,68,you could get 20 Salem cigarettes with the tobacco removed and pot put in for $5 or a 5 finger baggie
    or up too 1/2 lb,all for $5,it just depended on who you got it from. My best deals always came from the taxi drivers waiting outside the gate to take GI’s to town.
    I bought some opium dipped marijuana,without really knowing what it was,for $10,bout a three finger bag,but
    it was the last time. That stuff was strictly lala land.

  13. chris says:

    http://www.butwhataboutthechildren.org/?p=525#comment-5 wish I was at my pc so I could properly respond but yeah.

  14. Maria says:

    @chris Wow. That’s a shrill and histrionic little swipe.
    I’m sure Pete’s going to have a “devious” response.

    I wish for once they’d stop emoting “what about the children?!” and start looking, really looking, at the damage done to families because of prohibition and the drug war in general. That they’d step back and see “the children” as humans, as future adults. That they’d stop the hysterics for just a single second.

  15. Cliff says:

    “This country needs to smoke a bowl…”


  16. Ned says:

    In CA the rule is canopy dimension. Naturally in the highly charged game of “gotcha” that law enforcement plays with cannabis users, there have times when an errant branch or leaves allowed officers, inclined to be as technical as possible, to arrest a medical grower and haul away an otherwise compliant garden.

    In CA, a household is allowed to produce 200 gallons of beer or wine a year without need of a permit or license and with no tax. Notice they do not specify how many square feet of grape vines or hops, just finished useable product. It’s a much more fair and sensible rule. Use whatever space you need or want but limit the amount of finished product to this. The rule for cannabis should be 6,000 grams (just over 13 lbs) of dried trimmed flower per household without need of a license or tax.

  17. Chris says:

    In case of censorship at butwhataboutthechildren.org:

    While I would love to go through point by point to explain the expected results of each of your polices, have an actual dialogue to further discussion on the topic in a sensible and honest manner, I know this comment will possibly be deleted, and at best I would hope that this will be read and scoffed at throughout its reading. This is the wrong approach and shows intellectual weakness, which truly makes me sad. I hope you read past this point.

    First of all, know and understand this statement: I do not hate you, or what you are trying to achieve. I only want you to understand the deeper implications of the policies you endorse. Your goal of protecting children should not rely on arguments and ideas that have only been thought through at an emotional level, which is clearly evident throughout your website. Censoring comments that don’t agree with your viewpoint is a good way to ensure that your site is free from any meaningful discussion and shows that you have no intention of considering differing opinions in an objective manner. Most sites opposing the legalization do not even allow comments because the internet is dominated by proponents of drug policy reform. Ignore that first comment of mine, because I was posting from my phone and wasn’t able to present my arguments as well. Now that I’m back on my pc, I can get to it.

    If you have done the research and are sure of your approach, you should be able to refute my aruments in their entirety.You shouldn’t be against the idea of legalizing drugs if evidence truly suggests that is the best way of protecting children, and I can give you those arguments. Expecting that marijuana prohibition will protect children more than a legal market is about as pointless as expecting prohibition to stop adults from using it. If you want to read the best guess at how recreational drugs can be regulated in today’s society, look at Transform’s Blueprint for Regulation (http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blueprint%20download.htm).

    You take offense to the statement “Of course, it’s the same old “what about the children” nonsense”. I had thought that Pete explained what was wrong with your arguments in his post, but the implications of what you suggest are so obvious to most of us there it is needless for him to repeat them every time. That that you named your website over the the most tired logical fallacy really says something about the expected quality of any arguments proposed here. This appeal to emotion argument used so commonly when discussing the prohibition of ANY drug that it was enumerated in the “Themes in Chemical Prohibition” (Drugs in Perspective, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/ticp.html). Children are always used as an example why we cannot legalize a drug for adults, because: “The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption”. You also fall into the trap of demonizing Pete with straw man arguments, which is another predictable tactic: “Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated.”

    Next, you take offense and suggest that Pete does not care about children because he says your polices are nonsense. There’s a reason for that, and it comes from understanding more than just the surface argument. It’s commonly claimed that alcohol and tobacco are so bad for society that the taxes we collect do not cover their costs. Then, it is implied that the same will be true for a legal, taxed marijuana market. Please think about why this does not logically follow. Do you really have any idea what those costs are? You do not. Our best guess comes from a Canadian study (http://www.heretohelp.bc.ca/publications/cannabis/bck/7) which found that the cost per user for health related costs was $20 for cannabis, compared to $165 per user for alcohol and $800 per user for tobacco, per year. However, the costs to enforce the prohibition of cannabis was far greater than legal problems with alcohol or tobacco. The take-away from this is that without prohibition, there is very little cost for marijuana to society. Add this to the fact that we are currently passing these costs on to taxpayers while collecting no taxes at all for the sales of marijuana – it all goes to untaxed the black market. Knowing this, you have to chalk this one up for a legal market. And there are many, many, more arguments like this I could make. There is no one sentence argument against this, so please don’t respond with generalities or other logical fallacies. Respond with a real argument, have a real discussion, and make some real progress in drug policy.

  18. allan420 says:

    Thanks Chris, I went and left a comment.

    @ Clay… yeah, same in Thailand… $5 for a pack of pre-rolled, repackaged doobs (Klong Thips or Sai Foons I think were the Thai cigarette brands). And personally I liked the occasional OJ… mostly I think because the old (like reallly old) guy downtown that sold the opium balls was such a cool Thai cat.

  19. Dano says:


    I noticed that they wasted no time in censoring the comments at butwhataboutthechildren.org. I submitted my own, and I’m guessing that it will be censored too. Here’s my unedited posting:

    Thanks for plugging DrugWarRant.com. I think that any visitor that takes the time to really look at that site will soon learn that they too are about the safety of your children. In fact they have the safety of all in mind on that site. Children, parents, ordinary citizens, police, government…

    Prohibition inevitably creates a black market for whatever the government or people deem untouchable. These same black markets develop distribution networks and turf enforcement mechanisms, which we all hear about on the news these days. Gangs aren’t fighting over which blocks to call home, but rather which blocks are theirs to control the distribution of black market goods – their income. These same gangs would be just as happy to sell anyone including children: marijuana, cocaine, heroin or other illicit substances. Many of these same black market outlets can also set your little ones up with guns for a few extra dollars if they are interested.

    Removing the black market through legalization, not decriminalization, is the only way to take back the inner-city, and at the same time make sure that the children in your neighborhood are safer from their wares. And these same black markets at the real “gateway”, because if they don’t have one thing to sell they don’t mind suggesting some really “good” alternatives – they are sales first and foremost.

    If a parent gets caught with 1oz of marijuana you can almost guarantee that the police will start calling it distribution. At that point the children get removed from the home, put in state care, lawyers fees and plea bargains generally send the parent to prison for a time. Now that parent, upon release has a record that makes employment much harder to find. In the meantime the children become wards of the state and that never turns out good either.

    Then there’s always the SWAT team raids on households with the dogs shot, people terrified, and nothing found except a used pipe and police calling it a job done right. Nevermind the bewildered homeowner that suspects a home invasion and reaches for a baseball bat or gun for defense and then ends up dead because 10 people were all shouting things in unison and none of it was intelligible.

    We all want this to be a better place to live, but the current prohibition on marijuana isn’t doing this. It’s time for a sensible change with sensible regulations. We can teach our children the truth about these substances so that they can know the pitfalls and dangers that they entail, not the often made up rhetoric designed to scare them like a Brothers’ Grimm story.

    We truly can work together on these issues, but it also requires one to put aside the notions that a weed can be completely controlled by just saying “NO!”

  20. Chris says:

    My first comment appeared at first, then disappeared, then reappeared, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t deleting comments. But I definitely wouldn’t put it past them.

  21. ezrydn says:

    I posted my comment. Let’s see if it sticks. I doubt it because it calls them down on proof.

  22. tensity1 says:

    As far as the 25 sq ft, Russ Bellville of NORML and Chris Conrad put forth the argument that it is planting area, not canopy. I don’t remember the specifics, and have no link, but thought I’d throw that out there (I do remember thinking, “that’s a lot of bubbler buckets!).

  23. Ned says:

    tensity, the 5 x 5 area never became law so it doesn’t matter now. However, a state medical grow guideline of 10′ x 10′ specified “canopy” and that mattered in court cases.

  24. Pingback: Tweets that mention A picture’s worth… - Drug WarRant -- Topsy.com

Comments are closed.