Check this company out..

[richyrich]

your ignorence and stupidity do not even deserve rebuttal.

hey folks ya'll should stop arguing with bluedot, richie rich and other prohigitionists who ruin threads and troll and are against the movement.

That's a "you are either with us or you are against us" statement. Do you realize how illogical that is that you are advancing? By the way, it's RichyRich, thank you.

 

[richyrich]

I am pro-supply. I'm sorry if you think that it can get done under the idiotic non-profit only volunteers no money involved tree hugging socialist model. You can claim that the 2% dastards are 'rotten apples' but so far the only proposed solution is to toss the baby out with the bath water. There is no inherent harm from a for profit system, and it is a mistake to believe that the dastards of which you complain won't be able to wreak just as much havoc under such a non-profit system. It is simply untrue that everyone who plays the capitalist game is an uncaring asshole. It's a false stereotype, as false as the stereotype that has all cannabis consumers doing nothing but watching tv and eating cheetos in Mom's basement. You guys concentrate on being arbiters of 'morality', that being your 'morality' as defined by you without regard to the opinions of others. That's really SOP for moralists though, so it's not surprising. I concentrate on the big picture. I'm just as pro-WAMM as I am pro-Richard Lee. How about if you tell me why you think Mr. Lee and WAMM can't coexist. Please notice that Barnes & Noble coexists with public libraries everywhere. Next please explain why WAMM isn't producing enough to take care of the medical needs of everyone in CA. I'm fine with that, and Mr. Lee can find other work, which I'm sure he would. But reality is that Mr. Lee gets medicine to a heckuva lot more people that need it than does WAMM. Just give me a solution that isn't pie in the sky rainbows and puppies nonsense that will allow WAMM or a similar organization to actually provide that which is needed and I'll come over to your side quickly. My position is that you're insistence on non-profit is misplaced, and does nothing whatever to promote the needs of patients. You won't weed out the 'bad apples' by fiat. They'll figure out a way to line their pockets, and I'd rather have them in the light of day than hiding in the shadows. There are ways of dealing with such people short of instituting a wholly discredited system of distribution.

What you people seem to miss is that people that are successful in business will be successful in business. Take Mr. Lee's dispensary away from him and he'll have another business making money soon enough.

Thank you for steering me straight there. I understand more by your position "pro-supply." First, I would presume you would like to see MMJ provided for as many folks as possible. I think that it would need to be profitable for that to take place. If the price gets driven down so far; do you think a lot of these dispensaries will still be in the game? I think they would start closing up. True, a capitalist system will provide the most to the masses, but you have folks, like johnylla above, who speak down on mass production of 8%.

One thing, my law background cannot come to grips with the fact that many in the game are skirting the laws; it's not a moral issue for me.

I do not demand non-profit status. I demand that dispensary operators be "reasonably compensated" as written in the statutes. It's more like 80% of the dispensaries out there are the rotten apples. If you would like to hear stories of my intimate experience in that field, ask.

We began to speak of quality control and, quite possibly, how the dispensaries with a very large revenue could begin similar quality control such as in that link. Any input on that?

 

[richyrich]

I do not argue that the end justify the means. Once again, you are falsely stating my position, but it's no surprise that you care nothing about the truth. You are presuming that the means are wrong in and of themselves, and it is my position that isn't true. There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing a service and making a profit doing it. You seem to think everyone agrees with your whacked out 'morality', and that you're the arbiter of right and wrong, when nothing could be further from the truth.

If Mr. Lee decided to go to San Diego, yes, I believe he would be successful. But I doubt he'd choose to go there in the current climate. Good choices are part of being a successful in business. But go ahead, keep spinning stuff according to your agenda, I'll keep correcting you.

That's where my law bone gets tickled, where I believe BD gets disturbed and LEOS.

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing a service and making a profit doing it."

One thing about that, it is not legal to do so yet. Yet, it is going on with a fake facade by all the rotten apples. For all the MMJ movement pushers, they are a ball and shackle slowing the movement for their own inherent greed.

"If Mr. Lee decided to go to San Diego, yes, I believe he would be successful. But I doubt he'd choose to go there in the current climate. Good choices are part of being a successful in business."

Agreed on a business perspective. I am going to use your quote above. The current legal climate does not support for profit dispensaries and they are hurting the forward progression of the movement. Let's just watch and see what happens in LA. Would profiting in an ambiguous-current climate be a good choice to be successful? Maybe short term for the greedy who have no big picture concern on the future of the MMJ movement? Maybe just shore term and their present pocket and piggy bank?

 

[Pistil_Party09]

As annoying as I find Blue Dot it is my preference that he should be allowed to post. There used to be a poster here named inflorescence (sp?) who seemed to share his PO and was banned and I disagreed with that too. Banning the annoying and those who disagree seems like to reduce this forum to nothing more than an insulated, self congratulatory circle jerk.

i agree. seriously, how boring would this site be if everyone agreed and there were no debates?

 

[richyrich]

i agree. seriously, how boring would this site be if everyone agreed and there were no debates?

True that.

 

[Amstel Light]

I think it's great! the more corporations involved now will make it easier for those so inclined to incorporate sooner..When the masses see this it will start looking normal, business as usual, and they will soon forget about the propaganda that has been ingrained in thier sheep like minds..

 

[Blue Dot]

It's more like 80% of the dispensaries out there are the rotten apples. If you would like to hear stories of my intimate experience in that field, ask.

This is kinda what I was getting at.

For Pyth to think it's only 2% is just strange.

I mean just from my own experience visiting them I can tell by the vibe it's at least 50% IMO, if not more.

 

[Pythagllio]

Thank you for steering me straight there. I understand more by your position "pro-supply." First, I would presume you would like to see MMJ provided for as many folks as possible. I think that it would need to be profitable for that to take place. If the price gets driven down so far; do you think a lot of these dispensaries will still be in the game? I think they would start closing up. True, a capitalist system will provide the most to the masses, but you have folks, like johnylla above, who speak down on mass production of 8%.

Yes, I would like to see as many people get their medicine as possible, the goal being 100%. I think that the gov't should be required to assure that the poor receive their required medical care. I do expect 90% of the current dispensaries that avoid getting busted to go teats up as pricing falls, yes. But settlers always take a lot of arrows, it's one reason why I think these people should receive significant compensation. As far as 8% bud is concerned, do you mean 8% THC? Because 8% CBD would just be awesome. (I'm on a holy grail quest for high CBD seeds) Sorry, I know you meant THC. I'll admit I don't think 8% qualifies as medicine, but the Pakistani's solved that problem hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Frankly I doubt that smoking will persist for many more years, inhalation will move to vaporizers, and maybe we'll figure out how to solve the titration problem with edibles. Edibles could really use serious standardization and quality control. One man's triple strength brownie is another man's panic attack.

One thing, my law background cannot come to grips with the fact that many in the game are skirting the laws; it's not a moral issue for me.

Tell me, if I happened to have more than my 'limit' last year, would you say I was 'skirting the law'? Limits are unconstitutional now you know, but a constitutional violation occurs at the very start, not when the Supremes pass judgment. One thing that makes me want to cry is how much shit was left out of Prop 215 that really could have kept a lot of these headaches from happening. BD often speaks of the intent of Prop 215, but it's hard for me to reconcile Dennis Peron and no dispensaries or profit. Well, Mr. Peron did file a case and take it to the Supreme Court based on the 'intent of Prop 215'. His interpretation of what he had written was that he had indeed intended for for profit dispensaries to operate. But the Supremes knew better than he what he intended, and he lost. One question, and please speak from your legal training, do you really read the phrase 'does not authorize' as having the same meaning as 'does not allow'? To me it's cut and dried, that was written to avoid future confusion, as if SB420 were silent on the issue and at some point in the future the legislature did want to forbid for profit operations, there could be an argument that SB420 had actually authorized for profit entities. Prop 215 is silent on the issue of making a profit. Guess what, I'm going to make the very argument I just said the legislature was worried about. That Prop 215 by not forbidding the existence of for profit entities does in fact allow them to exist. Where in California law is making a profit on cannabis actually forbidden? Would you argue that were I to buy a pound of cannabis and give it to a undercover officer for free that I wouldn't be guilty of distribution? because last I checked the law doesn't require a profit or any money to change hands in order for me to be in violation. In the US if it ain't illegal, it's legal. Sure, I won't press the issue in a court of law because I'd likely lose, but it doesn't mean I'm not right. There is a certain shared madness when it comes to people making a profit on cannabis, and it's total horse shit.

I do not demand non-profit status. I demand that dispensary operators be "reasonably compensated" as written in the statutes. It's more like 80% of the dispensaries out there are the rotten apples. If you would like to hear stories of my intimate experience in that field, ask.

So who defines 'reasonable'? Who enforces it? Too many bottlenecks are going to serve to keep legitimate business people who see things your way from getting into the game, but it isn't going to prevent the hardcore thug from taking advantage. Las Vegas was founded by gangsters, was wholly corrupt for a while, and over time came to be corporate. Legit business isn't going to be interested until they see a track record so that the risk/reward can be vetted. The only people we have that are willing to set up the needed supply chain are those who are 'greedy', and those who measure their profit in warm fuzzies. If I had my druthers I'd prefer the WAMM model. But in practical application we just don't have enough Valerie Corrals to fill the need. I really don't need to hear your stories. I'm not naive, I've been dealing with potheads for 32 1/2 years now. I really don't care, because these clowns that perpetrate that crap won't last. They're also doing a very needed job which most people aren't willing to risk. Maggots make me want to vomit, but we'd have piles and piles of dead animals to deal with if they didn't do their job. Again, what's 'reasonable 'if the potential risk is financial ruin and 10 or 20 years in the can?

I really do hope I59 gets implemented in the DC. No arguments over all this bullcrap, they spelled it out very nicely. Plant limits, non-profit dispensaries allowed, no extra taxes like they voted in in Oakland, though I think they did try to exclude sales tax and failed because they didn't state it overtly thinking that sales tax doesn't apply to an NPO's sales. Christ its hard to believe that it was written in 1997. Had they had the benefit of hindsight into CA's situation I wouldn't be so impressed.

We began to speak of quality control and, quite possibly, how the dispensaries with a very large revenue could begin similar quality control such as in that link. Any input on that?

One of the Oakland outfits that everyone loves to hate is doing just that. It's important, but it takes resources. The equipment to do the testing isn't cheap. It's also barely practical under the current system.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/PrintFriendly?oid=936926

"For the first time in the 3,000-year history of human cannabis consumption, consumers will be provided a scientific assessment of the safety and potency of products prior to ingesting them," DeAngelo announced in December.

In the months since, DeAngelo's patrons have enjoyed mankind's most detailed product information thanks to the country's first commercial marijuana lab. Arrest and jail remain a constant worry for him and the lab's two owners. But they believe that if pot is truly medicine, it needs quality assurance and dosage information. The Analytical Laboratory Project wants to be the source of that information. The lab's ultimate goal is to provide testing for half of the 300 dispensaries in California.<snip>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BD, the 2% figure is representative against the entire population. Yeah, I'm sure they're over represented among dispensary owners but I'm just as sure that 80% isn't realistic either.

 

[Blue Dot]

they have a hard on for pissing on our parades.

"parades"? We're talking about MEDICAL MJ here.

Who the hell do you think is having a parade? Certainly not the sick!!!

 

[johnnyla]

"parades"? We're talking about MEDICAL MJ here.

Who the hell do you think is having a parade? Certainly not the sick!!!

yeah and the sick gaining freedoms they deserve is something to celebrate not shit on like you do. so piss off.

 

[richyrich]

Frankly I doubt that smoking will persist for many more years, inhalation will move to vaporizers, and maybe we'll figure out how to solve the titration problem with edibles. Edibles could really use serious standardization and quality control. One man's triple strength brownie is another man's panic attack.

I agree, that time will come soon.

Tell me, if I happened to have more than my 'limit' last year, would you say I was 'skirting the law'? Limits are unconstitutional now you know, but a constitutional violation occurs at the very start, not when the Supremes pass judgment.

My comments about skirting the law were not about limits. The Kelly case when filed will take care of that. I'm speaking of dispensaries. I don't think I need to explain my position any further on this; I have plenty before.


One thing that makes me want to cry is how much shit was left out of Prop 215 that really could have kept a lot of these headaches from happening.

I couldn't agree more.

BD often speaks of the intent of Prop 215, but it's hard for me to reconcile Dennis Peron and no dispensaries or profit. Well, Mr. Peron did file a case and take it to the Supreme Court based on the 'intent of Prop 215'. His interpretation of what he had written was that he had indeed intended for for profit dispensaries to operate. But the Supremes knew better than he what he intended, and he lost. One question, and please speak from your legal training, do you really read the phrase 'does not authorize' as having the same meaning as 'does not allow'? To me it's cut and dried, that was written to avoid future confusion, as if SB420 were silent on the issue and at some point in the future the legislature did want to forbid for profit operations, there could be an argument that SB420 had actually authorized for profit entities. Prop 215 is silent on the issue of making a profit. Guess what, I'm going to make the very argument I just said the legislature was worried about. That Prop 215 by not forbidding the existence of for profit entities does in fact allow them to exist. Where in California law is making a profit on cannabis actually forbidden? Would you argue that were I to buy a pound of cannabis and give it to a undercover officer for free that I wouldn't be guilty of distribution? because last I checked the law doesn't require a profit or any money to change hands in order for me to be in violation. In the US if it ain't illegal, it's legal. Sure, I won't press the issue in a court of law because I'd likely lose, but it doesn't mean I'm not right. There is a certain shared madness when it comes to people making a profit on cannabis, and it's total horse shit.

Peron was one of a few drafters of Prop 215.

Because sales or profit are not mentioned creates a loophole. I measure these types of things on how it would go down in front of a trier of fact (juror) and how they would decide the facts of the matter laid out before them. They would easily see that it is a loophole and it is being exploited. They would find against or guilty.

If my memory is correct, giving MJ away to someone for free is illegal; non-MMJ, of course. Need to look at the penal code.






One of the Oakland outfits that everyone loves to hate is doing just that. It's important, but it takes resources. The equipment to do the testing isn't cheap. It's also barely practical under the current system.

It is not practical. That company only produces one strain. A dispensary would have one hell of a time testing everything coming in. Sometimes it is all gone in one day.

You made a lot of good points.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

For even more information check this out!

http://safeaccess.ca/pr/hc_pps_contract_report.pdf
A Review of the Cannabis Cultivation Contract between
Health Canada and Prairie Plant Systems