-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for that. I don't know quite why you're so hell bent to vilify me in other ways, however.
I don't believe I've vilified outlaw growers in the way you describe at all. I do, however, point out that the reasons the rewards have been big is because the risk has been, too. That's a function of gamesmanship in a dishonest system of imposed scarcity. For every person who has truly prospered in it, many more have suffered.
Reality says that if the risk is removed for producers then there will be more & bigger producers, so the reward per production unit will be much smaller as well. It can be no other way. State regulation favors much larger growers, as well. I realize that threatens the lifestyles of outlaw growers in no small way. Some (notice that I said "some") will even fight to maintain a damaging & dishonest system for what they see as being to their personal advantage. In that, they stand against the tide of social justice & equality for cannabis users. They place their interests above those of millions of other people. We should be able to agree on that, I hope.
We can't end the marijuana war that way. It damages the fabric of society, tears the people apart, sets us against each other in a myriad of ways. In order to end the war, recreational cannabis users (not just MMJ users) need to be granted full respect & dignity under the law. That's a level above MMJ entirely. CO voters have done that. Coloradans claim cannabis use & personal growing as a civil right. It's part of the deal of A64, the compromise, the coming to terms with each other, the underlying honesty of it all.
All of us who actually live it seem to be adapting well with all the negativity coming from people who don't live here at all. As others have pointed out, opportunities to nut up & play the game are probably safer than ever. OTOH, nobody has to do it so that other people can get high here, either. Users aren't dependent on that. For better or worse, growers' place in the fulfillment of tokers' desires is now different.
Tennessee & Kentucky HAVE legalized hemp, & i believe a couple of others have as well. the wall has chips & cracks all over it now, & is starting to lean. i believe that EVERY state should have the option of ballot initiatives so the citizens would not have to convince their legislators to do the right thing. maybe an amendment to the Constitution allowing for THAT is the ticket...
why should officials elected by big business/banking get to decide how we live? cops don't go to THEIR doors & kick them in...I once believed that RISK = the high cost of weed.
However, I now see the high cost of weed strictly as greed. The STATE has basically told the rec market to keep the prices @ street values elsewhere, namely in the neighboring states, so that CO weed is not a huge draw for folks trying to load up and head back home.
So while I agree wholeheartedly that the new competition entering the market will change the dynamic of the wholesale side, I do not believe it will change/lower prices at a retail level. Basically...all it means it that those who are playing commercially will see cheaper supply and will make far more profit from each sale. In addition to the Black Market draw from other states, since this scheme (A64) IS all about instilling large sums of tax revenue into the State coffers, the likelihood of the State saying "sure..sell $20 eights rather than $60 1/8ths...is small.
Tax collections are already less than predicted However, contrary to the whine we are hearing here about how many $$$ are being ignored by not allowing expert horticulturists who also breed grow from their rented house - every dollar they do collect @ this point from retail sales is money they didn't collect previously/pre 64.
Hemp is all over the Midwest...growing wild along the county roads/old train track easements/etc. It would be interesting for someone to actually test these wild stands to see if there is CBD there. I KNOW there's no THC. LOL. We learned that shit in JR high school.
However, I now see the high cost of weed strictly as greed. The STATE has basically told the rec market to keep the prices @ street values elsewhere, namely in the neighboring states, so that CO weed is not a huge draw for folks trying to load up and head back home.
So while I agree wholeheartedly that the new competition entering the market will change the dynamic of the wholesale side, I do not believe it will change/lower prices at a retail level. Basically...all it means it that those who are playing commercially will see cheaper supply and will make far more profit from each sale. In addition to the Black Market draw from other states, since this scheme (A64) IS all about instilling large sums of tax revenue into the State coffers, the likelihood of the State saying "sure..sell $20 eights rather than $60 1/8ths...is small.
Tax collections are already less than predicted However, contrary to the whine we are hearing here about how many $$$ are being ignored by not allowing expert horticulturists who also breed grow from their rented house - every dollar they do collect @ this point from retail sales is money they didn't collect previously/pre 64.
Hemp is all over the Midwest...growing wild along the county roads/old train track easements/etc. It would be interesting for someone to actually test these wild stands to see if there is CBD there. I KNOW there's no THC. LOL. We learned that shit in JR high school.
No worries. I do it all the time, lol
WaittillIdie
Member
dc
Last edited:
I think a big part of the reason that taxes aren't as expected is because of lower prices on the med side. I think that's temporary. I read a bit from Hickenlooper which seemed to indicate that the state very much wants to bring the bottom line price for retail in line with both med & black market prices, actually somewhat below. 20% of all of it, even at lower prices, is still more that 20% of part of it. That's by the numbers, apparently.
Economies of scale & greenhouses will allow suppliers to do that while abandonment of vertical integration pushes it in that direction as well. The state has made sure there will be plenty of retail weed in the supply chain, too. Competition for market share should be intense. No matter what, it'll change a lot over the next couple of years into a very different market.
QFT That's what a lot of people fear, regulations putting people out of business and cornering the market. Forming a regulatory privileged gang. Imposing regulations that small and upcoming growers cant conform to, perhaps do to the costs, and making the market smaller and reducing competition and choices for the consumer. The sick or otherwise.
Eventually without the competition the price does rise and the market grows smaller. Which means if inflation does not drive the price of production up and reduce disposable income for consumers who work they might survive. But the banking system in place requires the exponential growth of the money supply so that is not going to happen.
What will happen is the costs of production will rise with inflation , the disposable income will be reduced. They could only cater to wealthy consumers unless they want to sell at negative costs to try to make up for it in volume which is unlikely given the disposable income of everyone being reduced, and certainly it will not serve to the disabled and sick or people on fixed incomes which it was supposed to serve in the first place. They will all go out of business. Might I add ,this is when the black market will make a come back.
This is why it is fatal to have any regulations at all. Politicians and certain voters can not imagine that the people who specialize in catering to a demand know how to run a business better than they do. But the truth is if they did know how to run a business they would have one.
This is what good people who want honest and open competition and just don't think the government has any business in the first place imposing any regulations on them, were talking about when they said you were being insulting.
It's to no ones personal advantage to be put in a cage for a period of years or you entire life. There might be some people out there who think that ,you can not count me among them. I know it is a natural right I am not going to settle for privileges from a gang. That's my personal choice and fight to take up.
I think there is a misconception about the difference between repealing of laws vs regulation and licensing.
I live in a med state, and it also has decriminalized it under an oz. There no dispensaries that I know of because of the cost associated with complying with the regulations. When or if they ever do open one or two they will basically have a monopoly on the industry, everyone else is going to jail. It does not solve anything. They skipped straight to regulatory capture of an industry. Its a warning to others what the end result of this method will be eventually.
If you are for supporting classes of people instead of every individual then there can be no equality. One class would have advantages others don't. Its not right and (((everyone))) deserves to make a living or just ingest a plant without any interference. This is the problem with voting.
If I may use the inadequate example of two wolves and a sheep voting what is for dinner. The sheep is going to have to give up any rights it had in favor of the mob vote. You could suppose it never had rights then in such a system.
So that is why regrettably voting for this is violating peoples rights and separating them into more classes ,in Colorado you call them outlaws which is insulting and undeserved . Everyone's rights could be respected by just repealing the laws.
So if the sheep was protesting for its rights I don't think it could be argued he was doing anything wrong even if the wolves were upset about it.
Agreed. I feel its stupid even to have to argue who gets what protections at all or who has to follow any regulations at all. But the law makers over time have violated the law and made new ones which violates our rights in the first place to divide and conquer. I can respect Colorado for what it has done it's a step toward an end, but I think perhaps if other states want to go another way, its their right to. I believe HR 2306 was the right legislation to repeal the federal prohibition and should be supported by everyone no matter what state they live in. That would be a perfect template to unite under.
WaittillIdie
Member
dc
Last edited:
You wrongfully assume monopoly via regulation, project from there. Dozens of regulated markets are not monopolistic, from food to cosmetics, autos, alcohol, tobacco, financial services, you name it.
Existing reality denies credibility to your premise & therefore any conclusions drawn from it.
Those people are an extreme minority expressing what the vast majority hold to be a radical & impractical POV.
Feel free. That's entirely optional in CO for the enjoyment of cannabis. Nobody has to risk prison to supply the desires of the populace.
Well then, complain about the situation in your state. That's not the situation in CO at all, nor likely will it ever be.
Standard libertopian boilerplate in defiance of reality & of the democratic principles this country was founded upon. I offer no class distinctions.
If you provide a politically correct term to describe growers who do so outside the law, I'll use it.
Obviously, I support HR 2306.
It's been so easy. So far in this thread alone, you've dismissed anyone that has-
-religious beliefs
-opposing viewpoints
-different political beliefs
-growers that grow for money
If others don't agree with you they're the idiot and you go into full attack mode. To be a supporter/proponent/member/cheerleader of a political party that demands the rest of us be tolerant of anyone who's different in beliefs/race/whatever, you sure don't display that attribute, unless agreed with. Typical I'm right and you're wrong bullshit.
The only thing we've been able to see any common ground on is that butwang really is an idiot. So maybe there's hope yet eh?
Its called regulatory capture it happens in more instances then you care to believe or acknowledge. Like in my state currently with regard to cannabis.
You are correct in that there is not a monopoly in the strict sense of the word in every industry, yet.
Consolidation takes time and the right politicians to offer more regulations.
The public believes them to be safety nets that's why they ask for more and more. They believe this governments job is to protect them from making bad choices ,and that is not the reason for the regulatory agencies existence or the result they get from the regulations currently in place.
They are there for the specific goal of allowing players into each market category you listed. That is why we have the war on some drugs as medicine and organic food farms and not Smithfield and Phizer. There are qualifications ,that are being dictated by people whom only have one interest and that's to make money by being the gate keepers to their respective industries.
A primer on regulations
Calling it radical does not prove your point, the majority can be wrong. People have rights even the minority.
Its not impractical also, I gave you and example which you state you support HR2306 which I must assume means you think it is practical.
I do believe if I remember correctly A64 allows personal grows with 3 vegging plants and 3 flowering plants. Trying to supply the populace is impractical you would have to go the commercial route with the regulations that apply. Both instances allow for the possibility of falling outside those guidelines and then face prison or fines.
I think that is wishful thinking, but I gave you the reasons why it wont work with regulations for purely economic reasons in my previous post. It may take years to get there but I think it might be better to take a closer look at what you call my "projecting".
I don't think any of the founders intended for democracy to extend to anything beyond the election process, Per article 4 sec.4. There were laws in place not to be usurped by the majority or their representative's. The bill of rights was supposed to enumerate our rights (not grant them they were pre existing and inherent), and the constitution was supposed to limit government. Which it failed in numerous ways to do so. In which case they stated to alter it to conform ,or abolish it.
They are human beings with rights. That would be the correct term. Seeing as how this is true no one gets to tell them what they may or may not do, unless they threaten your life or property which if you own yourself is the same thing. Then extends out to what they work for and rightfully came to possess.
You own yourself as well. The laws in the constitution and bill of rights were supposed to protect these principals. If the politicians followed it, if there were not activist judges and tyrannical executives, disobeying its clearly defined rules we would not be arguing over any of this. Therefore the term outlaw is inappropriate to describe people who have not violated anyone's rights.
Somebody doesn't understand the word "hypothetical." You can't possibly be dumb enough to misinterpret hypothetical scenarios as literal statements, can you?
I never once said I was a breeder. Leave it to you to misconstrue everything said and turn it into something it's not. Big surprise there. You've done it the entire time. It's hilarious how you and Jhhnn misinterpret details when reading these posts. I remember when Jhhnn did it he thought I lived in California for 50 pages when I clearly stated a dozen times that I lived in an illegal state.
Every time you say false shit about what I've claimed it just goes to show that you're not actually reading these posts and debating anything....you're trolling. This is proof that you guys aren't here to discuss anything.
so now you aren't a breeder? LOL. What about all of that whining about CO shutting down >you're< operation by not allowing home sales and "breeding"??
I knew asking for solid proof to back your claims would end the discussion from your end...just before you started trying to label me as a troll and back peddle on your words.
Most of us don't need "hypothetical" scenarios to base our posts upon. A few of you though...wow...it's all you do. Look at the vibe of this thread as an example. Rather than asking "how has legality affected you?" we get "Vote No to legalize cannabis- or else". This shows well that the OP's mind is made up and they have no interest in hearing from those who are truly experiencing "legality"...in whatever current form that may be.
Apologies all around for playing into it all....but I knew if the whining little fucker got enough rope he'd hang himself...and he did.
WaittillIdie
Member
dc
Last edited:
You misunderstood when I said, "as I have." I was simply referring to getting into legal trouble from growing cannabis "as I have." Not breeding.gl
Last edited:
WaittillIdie
Member
dc
Last edited:
Situations like this are probably the reason weed will be legal in all 50 states by next year. You just can't have these double standards existing side by side for much longer. Which, makes debating regulations in current legal states pointless. Nothing that stands currently will be in place when it's legalized in all 50 states.
We're debating policies that likely won't exist in the next couple of years.
/THREAD
- Status
