Well that's awesome and I did not know that was now the case. Thanks for the information!
My intent was that it's skeevy as hell to blackmail someone for growing cannabis. If there were very specific extenuating circumstances then I'd take that into account, yes. Still, federal prosecution of drug crimes often results in long periods of incarceration. I don't think that's justified for anything less than violent crimes.
HN readers might be advised to watch the new documentary called The House I Live In - it has footage from 20 states documenting the ineffectiveness, hypocrisy, and profiteering inherent in the War on (some) Drugs.
I think you are missing the joke, or it went way over your head.
The point is that it's also "skeevy as hell" - plus probably really bad management - to ask someone to maintain your $35,000 asset (possession of which could also get you in a world of legal trouble) in exchange for just a breakfast burrito.
Ignoring the morality of the entire subject, paying someone roughly $5 for many hours of work maintaining a $35,000 asset is just poor decision making.
You probably want to make sure that the people taking care of your $35,000 asset (and the business that goes along with it) are happily paid, otherwise you might find you don't have that asset anymore.
Apparently it's common to pay trimmers in 'scissor hash', ie what THC laden goop one can scrape from cutting shears, bud to smoke and food. Perhaps this employee was only paid with a burrito but I think it may be more likely she was compensated in both food and drugs. This is not to say the employers was acting fairly though.
It sounds to me like the 75 year old who's socking 34k per crop into a retirement account and conscripting employees from an unrelated company to assist (OTC, of course) in the harvest while compensating them with a breakfast burrito is a much greater piece of work.
