Author Topic: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution  (Read 341 times)

Phil Barela

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2018, 03:31:04 AM »
If I try and fail, I'm okay with that. But to not try at all? No thanks.

Is success likely? Depends how you measure it, I suppose. Probably not in Ohio. But Arizona has been pretty successful at regulating light pollution. You say laws will do nothing, I say they do something at least some of the time. Any incremental improvement is worth the effort to me, and changes don't come over night, they take decades. But someone has to at least make the effort to change things. I've seen lots of things I thought would never change get changed.

Lamichael Evans

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 123
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2018, 04:14:04 AM »
I am not looking to get in an argument either. It is simply a fact that it is still illegal federally and they should be discreet and not broadcast that they are growing it in a large scale like they are when using these lights and not using black out tarps. Anyone informed about the situation knows the feds still patrol that area in helicopters and would see these lights from miles away. I am not here insulting someone's intelligence like you are. I have self esteem.

trapoutampub

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2018, 08:23:35 PM »
Again, these are not clandestine growers operating out of their basement or attic or some building they've rented to avoid "the man". You do not hide a commercial greenhouse, ie a facility that has glass panels everywhere to take advantage of the sun. There's almost no way to do that. An IR camera will reveal them even if curtains are placed over the entire facility.

The OP could have as easily used a vegetable, consumer-seedling, or bouquet crop as an example, (and indeed I'm not exactly sure why he/she focused on pot growers...most greenhouse operations are growing food or flowers. There's simply no way pot growers will ever come close to the impact they have, regardless of whether they're allowed state by state or if federal laws were rescinded altogether)

And btw, insulting someone's intelligence? That's a bit of a desperate comeback.

Done and over.

brigtigeartgib

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2018, 03:56:47 PM »
Quote
Perhaps someone with a law degree might chime in, idk. I don't have one, just common sense and an IQ well above double digits.

[/quote]
here it is for posterity, your backhanded attack on anyone that disagrees with you. You are the one that is desperate and have no argument to stand on so you resort to ad hominem attacks. Whether you like it or not, opinions and ignorance don't matter in court. That is where these growers will go if they continue to not be discreet. Search warrants are given for much less than a power bill and bright lights being seen from outside the buildings. BTW, mylar reflects infrared pretty well and has been used to hide gardens for dozens of years.

rissubssimpsat

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2018, 07:08:16 PM »
That is not an ad hominen attack (I realize how popular that term has become recently) . It would have been ad hominen had I said "you sir are an idiot", but I did not nor did I intend to. If anything , it could be interpreted as self-aggrandizing, although that too would be wrong since I can back up the claim.

The IQ comment was intended to say, "I am not speaking as a stupid idiot who has an agenda:" and nothing more. I am not a lawyer and do not know the specific conditions under which commercial growers conduct their apparently state legal business in states in which they have been authorized to do so.

for the record: Ad hominen attack - an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

Methinks that defines exactly what you have just done.

and I quote "You are the one that is desperate and have no argument to stand on so you resort to ad hominem attacks."

Frankly, I could care a less and am hardly "desperate". It's illegal for me to grow in Ohio. It's illegal for me to smoke or otherwise ingest in Ohio... And I would never openly state that I would violate the state laws regarding growing IFF I did (and which I am not). My purpose in commenting on this thread was clear, as summed up in one of my replies to the OP

"I was simply pointing out that any such law would logically have to extend to other greenhouse users or tax-payer costly litigation will surely ensue, which might be problematic, but as you say, they may add preventatives on their own."

getneyprotges

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2018, 08:57:00 AM »
My original point is that legalizing the use of medical marijuana could have an impact on light pollution, something that might not be immediately apparent to everyone. Would I like all greenhouses to be regulated. Yes. Do I think that we should ask for language to be inserted into any bills legalizing the growing of marijuana regulating their output of light. Yes. Do I think that would survive a legal challenge. Yes. Do I have a law degree. Yes. Do I want to go into the reasons why it would survive a legal challenge? No.

Junee Hunt

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2018, 09:42:34 AM »
earlyriser, imo, that language should be inserted so it applies to any greenhouse, not just carnation growers, orchid growers, seedling growers, or some other targetted group like the specific subject of the thread.

As a lawyer, are you saying that the general language would survive (which I think could be true with the growing - albeit slow growing - awareness of light pollution ), or that you could successfully target one group and not the others? If the latter, for curiosity's sake, can you give a general idea of how that would work? (ie, without ending up causing a great expenditure for the citizenry in courtrooms)

edit: ps> Although I would think it would be tacitly known what I mean, to be clear I mean augmented-lighting greenhouses, not tradition sunlight-only greenhouses.

Chad Shepard

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 122
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2018, 02:19:20 PM »
you forgot a word i included when discussing ad hominems: backhanded - indirect; ambiguous or insincere

it is something cowards do to insult others and later explain how it isn't an ad hominem when it was intended to be. I will accept this as what conspired and move on as it is fallacious and ridiculously wrong.

It happened in Colorado but I am uncertain if the industry was ever regulated in California. As a regulated industry, it most certainly can have restrictions that aren't put on other forms of business. Are there any laws that state you can only grow 12 marigolds? Plants don't have equal rights. If a state wants to make a law then they will, even if they know it later will found in the courts to be unconstitutional.

maulaepretag

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2018, 06:36:35 PM »
Quote
I am not looking to get in an argument either. It is simply a fact that it is still illegal federally and they should be discreet and not broadcast that they are growing it in a large scale like they are when using these lights and not using black out tarps. Anyone informed about the situation knows the feds still patrol that area in helicopters and would see these lights from miles away. I am not here insulting someone's intelligence like you are. I have self esteem.


Not in Washington state.

The state regulations REQUIRED lights and security on ALL grow sites. I was driving back in adjacent county and saw the "glow" from a grow operation. It was impressive for light output. In my county, the County Commissioners are zoning out grow operations due to complaints from neighbors about light at night. That and the "smell" of the "orchards".  Good thing, since we have the lowest electrical rates in the country.....just like all the server farms showing up due to our low power rates and fiber optics infrastructure.....so the pot growers looking to expand want to locate here.

The big issue here has been the lights and smell. Good news in the sense that it raises awareness about light at night.

The growing of pot is NOT an issue in Washington state. It is a farming operation and regulated as such.

Oh, this is not a left/ right political issue in Washington state. They can stop by the Courthouse and get the address of local grow operations. It will be interesting if this becomes a 10th Amendment court case.

bermordliro

  • Active Astronomer
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Mixed Light Greenhouses for Pot and Light Pollution
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2018, 10:10:29 AM »
Quote
you forgot a word i included when discussing ad hominems: backhanded - indirect; ambiguous or insincere

it is something cowards do to insult others and later explain how it isn't an ad hominem when it was intended to be. I will accept this as what conspired and move on as it is fallacious and ridiculously wrong.

It happened in Colorado but I am uncertain if the industry was ever regulated in California. As a regulated industry, it most certainly can have restrictions that aren't put on other forms of business. Are there any laws that state you can only grow 12 marigolds? Plants don't have equal rights. If a state wants to make a law then they will, even if they know it later will found in the courts to be unconstitutional.

here. let me be clear. Screw off with your unsubstantiated allegations. Maybe you should cut down on your pot use as your appear to be paranoid