For the first time ever, many of the farmers who supply Mexican drug cartels have stopped planting marijuana, reports the Washington Post. "It's not worth it anymore," said Rodrigo Silla, a lifelong cannabis farmer from central Mexico. "I wish the Americans would stop with this legalization."
Facing stiff competition from pot grown legally and illegally north of the border, the price for a kilogram of Mexican schwag has plummeted by 75 percent, from $100 to $25, the Post reports:
Farmers in the storied "Golden Triangle" region of Mexico's Sinaloa state, which has produced the country's most notorious gangsters and biggest marijuana harvests, say they are no longer planting the crop…increasingly, they're unable to compete with US marijuana growers. With cannabis legalized or allowed for medical use in 20 US states and the District of Columbia, more and more of the American market is supplied with highly potent marijuana grown in American garages and converted warehouses—some licensed, others not.
As notesDavid Downs of the East Bay Express, this is a really big deal. In the past decade, Mexican drug cartels have murdered an estimated 60,000 people. The DEA annually spends more than $2 billion to deter the transport of illicit drugs across the border. "So now we have both the DEA and cartel farmers screaming bloody murder about legalization," Downs points out. "Sounds like we're on the right track."
Of course, the American pot boom is also creating problems of its own, with some Mexican traffickers moving north to California and other states to set up vast "trespass grows" on remote public lands. To be sure, the illicit market for weed will prop up criminal syndicates for as long as pot remains illegal, yet this week's news is some of strongest evidence to date that legalizing and decriminalizing pot will ultimately make everyone safer.
Like rednecks at a demolition derby, novelists keep showing up at the World Series of Poker. To be sure, other writers (notably James McManus) have won far more prize money playing high-stakes hold 'em, but none can match the self-deprecating charm of Colson Whitehead, a recently divorced New Yorker who figures that being "half dead inside" gives him the perfect poker face. With just six weeks to train, he juggles bus trips to Atlantic City with picking up his daughter from school. He finds something oddly reassuring about sharing tables with a hoodied "Robotron" and a grizzled "Methy Mike." The Noble Hustle, part love letter, part dark confessional, captures perfectly the mix of neurosis and narrative that makes gambling so appealing.
This review originally appeared in our May/June 2014 issue of Mother Jones.
US Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), playing a guitar
Two years ago, California Rep. Jared Huffman, who had previously served as a state assemblyman and an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, was elected to represent a district stretching from Marin County all the way to the Oregon border. It includes the Emerald Triangle, the three-county region that produces most of America's domestically grown marijuana. Huffman's people got in touch after seeing my recent story, "The Landscape-Scarring, Energy-Sucking, Wildlife-Killing Reality of Pot Farming." The congressman wanted to discuss, among other things, how he proposed to deal with the devastation that results from trespass grows on public lands.
Mother Jones: What's it like being the highest-elected official from the nation's epicenter of marijuana cultivation?
"When I…saw what people were doing to our streams and our fisheries and our watersheds, I was outraged."
Jared Huffman: I tell people that I represent the district with a third of the California coast, the biggest trees in the world, some of the best wine grapes in the world, and about 60 percent of the marijuana produced in America.
MJ: In fact, marijuana is the primary industry in your district. How do you approach that?
JH: It makes it that much more important that we find our way to a coherent marijuana policy, and that's what I try to work on. Right now, we are talking about one of the most urgent pieces, which is to discourage these trespass grows that are causing so much environmental damage on public and private lands.
MJ: Is it safe to say that marijuana farming is now the biggest environmental issue in your district?
JH: It is right at the top, number one. It has some competition: We have climate change and lots of other things, but this is creating some of the most acute effects, with consequences that could include extinction of species. When I learned about these trespass grows and saw what people were doing to our streams and our fisheries and our watersheds, I was outraged.
MJ: You're the sponsor of a bill called the PLANT Act, which would crack down on some of the most destructive pot gardens.
JH: The objective is to set stronger penalties where trespass grows are found. The illegal water diversions, the rampant use of toxic chemicals, the cutting down of trees, the destruction of wildlife—when these things are present in a trespass grow, we want there to be very, very stiff penalties.
MJ: But the people who tend to get busted at these grows are usually the low-level guys, often undocumented Latin American immigrants. The hard part is to catch their employers, the guys with the connections and the money. How is this bill going to change that?
JH: We have to begin to send a message that this is going to be taken seriously. The message to date has been that you can get away with this and there really is no consequence.
MJ: What's your personal stance on pot?
"I don't use it. I don't want any kids anywhere to use it; if I ever find one of my kids using it, they are in big trouble."
JH: I am not by any stretch an enthusiast or fan of marijuana. I don't use it. I don't want any kids anywhere to use it; if I ever find one of my kids using it, they are in big trouble. But I just think we have to face reality. This criminalization policy has been a failure by absolutely any measure. And we've got to learn the lessons of [alcohol] prohibition, find better ways to manage this substance. My hope is that we can deal with this the way we have dealt with tobacco: It has never been criminalized, but we have done a great job of reducing tobacco use, and we haven't had to lock anyone up for selling or using it.
MJ: How would the environmental problems associated with cannabis change if it were legalized?
JH: I think it would change overnight. You don't see people trekking back into the forest to grow soybeans.
MJ: But in 2010, all three counties in the Emerald Triangle voted against Proposition 19, the state ballot measure that would have made pot legal for recreational use. Growers feared that it would cause prices to drop and hurt their bottom lines. So how would ending prohibition benefit your constituents?
JH: It's going to be a mixed bag for some people. Those who have derived their livelihood from the high prices of marijuana—it being an illegal substance—are going to have to adjust to that. The feedback I'm getting is that the days of romanticizing the mom-and-pop pot grower are gone. That the influx of cartels and violent crime and the out-of-control nature—especially of the trespass growing—has changed things. All of it has taken us to a tipping point. Even in the Emerald Triangle, I now hear widespread calls for legalization. Many people who used to oppose legalization are now seeing it differently.
MJ: How often to do you hear from marijuana growers?
JH: I don't really hear from growers as an organized community.
MJ: There's the Emerald Growers Association, but I gather that most growers aren't very politically active.
JH: There was a time when they seemed like they might be able to organize themselves, when it looked like medical cannabis might be suitable to local ordinances and professional associations, but the incoherence of our marijuana policy has really frustrated that.
MJ: In your view, when is pot finally going to be legalized on the federal level?
The internet is not pleased that Condoleezza Rice will be joining the board of the filesharing service Dropbox. A lot of the concern has to do with the fact that she'll be helping Dropbox navigate "international expansion and privacy" issues. As Ars Technica notes, the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State isn't exactly the kind of person you'd trust to defend your data from Uncle Sam: In 2003, she authorized NSA wiretaps of members of the United Nations Security Council at the behest of George W. Bush, and later defended them. Of course, to be fair, maybe having an insider like Rice onboard will allow Dropbox to push back against would-be government intrusions. Still, the news is likely to give a boost to Dropbox competitors that now market their cloud services, convincingly or not, as "NSA-proof."
Remember the backlash against the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH)? Many commercial dairies now market their milk as free of this synthetic hormone, but that label may not tell you everything you need to know. Thanks to the way it is produced nowadays, milk from a commercial dairy is likely to contain much higher levels of natural sex hormones than you'd find in milk from a traditional (pre-industrial) dairy herd. And that could pose an rbGH-type problem. Some research suggests that elevated levels of these hormones may affect childhood development and raise a person's cancer risk.
"The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking," Harvard researcher Ganmaa Davaasambuu, an expert on milk-related illnesses, said during a 2006 talk at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. It "may not be nature's perfect food."
In America and Japan, commercial dairy cows are kept pregnant so they can be milked 10 months a year.
In the early 2000s, Davaasambuu began investigating why the rate of prostate cancer in Japan, while much lower than that of the United States, had increased 25-fold over the past 50 years. She and a colleague, the Japanese doctor Akio Sato, examined 36 years of dietary data in Japan and found that the incidence of, and mortality from, prostate cancer correlated most closely with the consumption of milk. Dairy products weren't widely available in Japan until after WWII, when it imported American cows and dairy techniques, and a new law, enacted in 1954, mandated that schoolchildren drink 200 milliliters of milk at every school lunch.
In a follow-up study, Davaasambu found that milk consumption strongly correlated with the rates of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers in 40 countries. Part of the problem, she believed, was that milk contains high levels of sex hormones such as estrogen. It's well known that estrogens can induce prostate cancer in rats, and some epidemiological studies (but not others) have associated higher blood levels of estrogens in humans with prostate cancer risk. Estrogen imbalances have also been linked to breast cancer, and milk may be a delivery vehicle for the hormone. A 2004 study published in the International Journal of Cancer found that rats fed a diet of milk developed more and larger mammary tumors than those fed a diet of artificial (non-dairy) milk.
If milk does increase our risk of developing certain cancers, Davaasambuu wondered, then why aren't those cancers more common in traditional cow herding societies? Searching for answers, Sato, her Japanes colleague, took his team to Mongolia, where breast and prostate cancer rates are low. They discovered that whole milk from Japanese Holsteins contains far more estrogen and progesterone (67 percent and 650 percent, respectively) than whole milk from Mongolian cows. If Davaasambuu's theory is correct, the difference in hormone levels could help explain the difference in cancer rates between the two populations.
In one study, the researchers concluded that children's sexual maturation could be affected "by ordinary intake of cow milk."
The reason that milk produced in America and Japan has more sex hormones than Mongolian milk is simple. The free-range cows kept by Mongolian nomads get pregnant naturally and are milked for five or six months after they give birth. In Japan and the United States, the typical dairy cow is milked for 10 months a year, which is only possible because she is impregnated by artificial insemination while still secreting milk from her previous pregnancy. Milk from pregnant cows contains far higher hormone levels than milk from nonpregnant ones—five times the estrogen during the first two months of pregnancy, according to one study, and a whopping 33 times as much estrogen as the cow gets closer to term.
As it turns out, the difference in hormone levels between Mongolian and American milk may indeed be significant enough to affect cancer rates. For example, a 2007 study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology found that rats fed commercial milk developed mammary tumors more often than those fed traditional milk. Other studies suggest a possible link between milk hormones and ovarian and uterine cancers: Davasaambuu found that rats fed on commercial milk had uteruses that were significantly heavier than those of rats on a dairy-free diet. A similar study published in 2010 in the journal Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine showed that a diet of traditional milk also affected rat uteruses, but not as much as a diet of commercial milk, which resulted in uteruses about 25 percent heavier on average.
At a 2006 symposium on milk, hormones, and human health in Boston, Davasaambuu and Sato went so far as to suggest that dairy companies add a new category of premium milk to their offerings: Milk produced exclusively from non-pregnant cows.
Of course, as Davasaambuu acknowledges, the science is far from settled. A 2012 study published in the Journal of Dairy Science found that feeding commercial milk to rats had no effect on uterine weights, for example. More animal and human tests must be conducted before scientists can draw firm conclusions, she says.
Health researchers are also interested in how hormones in commercial milk might affect development. In research published in 2007, Davasaambuu found that the blood-hormone levels of Mongolian third graders jumped after a month of being fed commercial American milk. A 2010 Japanese study saw similar results in children and adults—men's testosterone levels decreased after they began drinking commercial milk. "Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk," the researchers concluded.
"Milk is a very complex food; there are a lot of good things and also not very good things."
Despite avid public interest in Davasaambuu's milk research—"People are emailing me on almost a daily basis," she told me—her lab and others have conducted few new studies in recent years. "Milk is a very complex food; there are a lot of good things and also not very good things," which can make it hard to study, she noted. For instance, research suggests that other milk components, including calcium (in excess) and a hormone called insulin-like growth factor can also cause health problems.
Davasaambuu wanted to further compare the health effects of Mongolian and American milk, but in 2008 the National Institutes of Health denied her Harvard lab's funding application, arguing that the dairy systems and human populations in the two countries were too different to merit comparison. Since then, she has cobbled together private funding for another study of 350 Mongolian schoolchildren, but hasn't yet published the results. Mongolian authorities resisted the study, fearing their kids were being used as guinea pigs.
There are certainly downsides to living in a traditional society such as Mongolia, whose infant mortality rate, for example, is almost four times that of the United States. And the average Mongolian cow produces just 1.3 gallons of milk per day, compared with 9 gallons from the average American Holstein. Mongolian children drink one-third less dairy than their American counterparts. But judging from Mongolia's low cancer rates, at least, its habit of drinking judicious amounts of traditionally produced free-range milk might be just what the doctor ordered.