dirt / By Amy Stewart

Monetize It!

Here’s a bunch of things that the “prepare for legalization” crowd maybe hasn’t thought about yet

(April 1, 2010)  Finally, an open and substantive discussion on how Humboldt can transform its underground economy into a legitimate business! With a legalization initiative firmly on the ballot, there’s no better time to figure out what the Emerald Triangle might look like in the post-legalization environment. I just hope Humboldt’s growers can take some cues from the rest of the horticulture industry. University botanists, plant breeders, wholesale nursery growers, garden centers and gardeners themselves participate every day in a legal, above-board commerce centered around plants — all plants, that is, except for this one.

And there are important lessons that Humboldt’s homegrown horticulture can take from the rest of the plant biz. After having spent a few years studying the cut flower industry, and many years watching the plant and garden industry as a whole, I think there are some good ideas out there worth considering. Such as …

By Artist Briony-Morrow Cribbs. Courtesy of Wicked Plants by Amy Stewart.

GALLERY >

Patents and trademarks. The idea of “branding” cannabis grown in Humboldt is a fine one, but I hope growers are bracing themselves for the day when Big Tobacco walks into the US Patent and Trademark Office and files a patent for every strain of cannabis on the market. That’s a patent, folks, as in, a piece of paper that prohibits anyone else from asexually reproducing, selling or using the patented plant without permission. Now, plant patents are complicated and well beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that the day may come with the patent office is ready to accept plant patents for cannabis. Who’s working on that paperwork?

A trademark is another beast entirely. Plant trademarks are controversial; some plant growers (including outspoken nurseryman Tony Avent) point out that a trademark only protects a brand, not individual products within that brand. So trademarking an individual plant species or cultivar is, people like Avent claim, a misuse of the trademark process. Trademarking a line of plants all sold under one brand name would be a legitimate use of trademarking.

And yes, the Feds are probably not ready to accept a trademark application for what will remain, in their view, an illegal product. But that could change. Who’s going to be the first to file a trademark when it does? And what happens when the owner of that trademark starts sending lawyers to Humboldt to block the use of terms like “Trainwreck” and “Purple Haze”?

I’m not a plant patent and trademark lawyer, but if I had a stake in this game, I’d sure call one.

Responsible business practices. Legit agricultural businesses have to file reports of their pesticide use with the county ag department, enforce health and safety standards for their workers, pay fair wages and taxes, pass inspections and generally run a clean and safe operation. Those laws are on the books for a reason: Without them we risk chemical spills, electrical fires and a total lack of worker protections. Sound familiar?

Now, the tricky bit here is that a person who decides to make their living growing pot is probably doing it in part because they don’t want to deal with the Establishment. But this is California, and we regulate our agriculture. I’d get busy complying with those laws and learning how to keep records, follow rules and all that grown-up stuff. In fact, why not just voluntarily start complying with California’s agricultural and labor laws? It’s the right thing to do. Right?

1 2 NEXT PAGE >SHARE