I think your point is that most people will be happy with what they perceive as decent or good weed and pay the minimum they need to period. I think Shaggy is saying that small batch high end will go for somewhat more and have no problem getting rid of it. there are always higher end customers willing to pay for quality. Always appreciate both of your perspectives.
-
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"!
Oregon/Washington/Colorado Comparison (why OR is best)
- Thread starter Beta Test Team
- Start date
I think your point is that most people will be happy with what they perceive as decent or good weed and pay the minimum they need to period. I think Shaggy is saying that small batch high end will go for somewhat more and have no problem getting rid of it. there are always higher end customers willing to pay for quality. Always appreciate both of your perspectives.
B
BadPenny
Interesting article in the Medford newspaper last week. The OHA released info, either by press release or FOI request stating Selma has the largest amount of farms in Southern Oregon by size of medical patients and growers, and all but one was registered to Orange County, CA residents. as you don't have to be a resident in OR to be a med patient or a producer, licensee, etc. I thought that was an ironic fact. Plus the rumors of OLCC wanting to get rid of the OMMP or OHA, if the rec tax dollars are enough.
http://www.theweedblog.com/oregon-wants-your-input-on-recreational-marijuana/
http://www.theweedblog.com/oregon-wants-your-input-on-recreational-marijuana/
B
BadPenny
Also like to add that the first club to open, in Gold Hill in Southern Oregon last year, rejected 50% of their initial offerings from the area after testing due to mold, mildew and mites, according to the owner. Thats not a very good percentage, but most patients and I suspect growers in the south know that already, especially the ones not using greenhouses, and even those, I'd take my scope with me if conducting your mmj relationship or rec business relationship if you are a patient or consumer or don't grow your own. Growing trees of mj outside does not directly correlate into great mmj, but it sure does make a hell of a yield, which seems to be as much or more important to the growers than quality. Even the club meds looked tumbled or kiefed and I know the outdoor growers do it, they'll even tell you and brag about it. lol. Im glad they are getting all they can get out of the plant before the patient does, not to mention what they do with all that extra. And those names, lol, multinoma coma, worthless. Cave Junction Kush, lol, JJ's Kush, lol, Gerdies blue goo, and on and on. If you live there, you really just have to laugh, or you'd cry as a patient who can't grow for yourself, the landlords that aren't raping the outdoor growers for outrageous rent and part of the harvest, will just evict you or start the process if you are caught growing. I realize if you own, that doesnt apply, but most don't, many do. Its just not as rosy here as some would have you believe, imho. I also like how OGF's old member A Johnson has made his new job legal mj consultant and making money hand over fist, did he learn that from Paul Stanford. What's really funny or ironic is him and his gal are students of Dan Viets of NORML fame also, if you can call it that.
I'm not sure where to go to be honest. I'm looking at all three. I'll have some capital, not a ton, but enough. Also, I need to know what areas have the best schools.
Quality depends on professionalism and why someone is doing something. It takes a little knowledge to grow cannabis really well.
I just want to grow the plant without going to jail. I have to move.
RF
Quality depends on professionalism and why someone is doing something. It takes a little knowledge to grow cannabis really well.
I just want to grow the plant without going to jail. I have to move.
RF
Beta Test Team
Member
Then don't move to WA, you can't grow for personal there. In CO it's 6 plants, three of which can be flowering, and I think outdoor isn't allowed (though maybe Jhhnnn can offer input). In OR you can grow 4 plants as you see fit.
If you're thinking about starting a Cannabis production business, than OR is your best bet because CO requires a 2 year residency(!!!), and WA it's only 3 months residency, but WA is so screwed up right now it's not worth your time (and you can't apply for a new license now anyway, you would have to buy an existing company to get into the industry in WA).
I'm not a fan of CO or WA in how they're carrying out their new laws. But OR has such as small market compared to WA and CO it makes OR less appealing simply for business volume.
If you're thinking about starting a Cannabis production business, than OR is your best bet because CO requires a 2 year residency(!!!), and WA it's only 3 months residency, but WA is so screwed up right now it's not worth your time (and you can't apply for a new license now anyway, you would have to buy an existing company to get into the industry in WA).
I'm not a fan of CO or WA in how they're carrying out their new laws. But OR has such as small market compared to WA and CO it makes OR less appealing simply for business volume.
B
BadPenny
be sure and read about the buffer zones and bans per counties or cities, I see other disgruntled discussions going on per these subjects with the new law. For the business side, those licenses dont' go out till Jan16. The rec law in July. Medical side hasn't changed much, I see some thinking that you can grow rec and med at the same residence, the language of the law reads per residence, so I suspect some will try to test that gray area, they are already talking of their plans, to me it makes one or the other over on either numbers or weight, I do understand there may be no way to really enforce it if its that way, but my fear is that will be one reason they see to mess with or do away with medical if they do. I've heard tell the OLCC doesn't see whats goin on in WA as all bad, aka some points they do like.
It's hard to say just how it'll work out in Oregon. It could be nice or miserable, depending on how the liquor board acts. The llicensing & fee structure would be favorable to small commercial growers if implemented in that direction. Their MMJ/caregiver statutes are favorable, as well, much as in CO. That varies by county & municipality here in CO due to peculiarities of CO law.
CA is another obvious answer, growing under MMJ statutes.
The whole thing really depends on what one wants from growing. If you just want an endless personal stash, CO works well for a couple. There is no at home possession limit for anything that could plausibly have been grown on site. Nobody is looking to bust anybody who isn't dealing, so we just share any excess with friends. The legal status of outdoor personal growing hasn't really been tested in court. I suspect there's a lot of it behind privacy fencing. The legal definition of a locked enclosed space out of public view remains vague. I think Denver cops pretend not to notice.
@ Jhhnn
You had stated in the past that CO. has a constitution that is rock solid.
In fact you laughed at me when i suggested the feds could put a stop to your legal cannabis anytime they wish.
You said no way this could ever happen without a vote of the people and by the people.
Please check your facts.... seems your constitution will not stop a federal cop from arresting anyone they want in CO. today.
Yes, they can pretend not to notice if they so choose, but it is the penitentiary for you if they wish to prosecute you under the current law.
Here is something to back up my claim.
Colorado: Sheriffs Say Marijuana Legalization Should Be Overturned
Today six Colorado sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to reverse marijuana legalization in their state, which they say should be overturned because it makes them uncomfortable. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith and his counterparts in five other counties say Amendment 64, the marijuana legalization measure that is now part of Colorado's constitution, has made their jobs harder by creating a conflict between state and federal law. "When these Colorado Sheriffs encounter marijuana while performing their duties," their complaint says, "each is placed in the position of having to choose between violating his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and violating his oath to uphold the Colorado Constitution." This supposed dilemma arises from Smith et al.'s mistaken assumption that they have an obligation to help the federal government enforce its ban on marijuana.
According to the Supreme Court's extremely generous reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to ban cultivation, possession, and distribution of marijuana, even when those activities are permitted under state law and do not cross state lines (in fact, even when they are confined entirely to the privacy of someone's home). The federal government therefore may continue to enforce marijuana prohibition in Colorado. But contrary to what the sheriffs seem to think, that does not mean they are required to lend a hand, notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, which makes valid acts of Congress "the supreme law of the land." Under our federalist system, Congress has no authority to dragoon state and local officials into enforcing its laws - a point the Court made clear in Printz v. United States, a 1997 case involving federally mandated background checks for gun buyers.
Under the "anti-commandeering principle" that the Court applied in Printz, requiring local cops to enforce the federal ban on marijuana would be clearly unconstitutional. So when a Colorado cop encounters someone 21 or older with an ounce or less of marijuana (the limit set by state law) and does not confiscate it as contraband under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), he is not violating his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Likewise if he finds six or fewer plants in someone's home and leaves them there or if he passes a state-licensed pot shop and does not try to shut it down.
Similarly, the U.S. Constitution does not require state legislators to mimic federal law by punishing everything Congress decides to treat as a crime. Yet Smith et al. argue that eliminating state penalties for marijuana-related activities violates the CSA and therefore the Supremacy Clause. They are asking the U.S. District Court in Colorado to overturn all the sections of Amendment 64 that say specified activities involving marijuana - including possession and home cultivation as well as commercial production and distribution by state-licensed businesses - "are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law."
To put it another way, the sheriffs want a federal court order requiring Colorado to recriminalize these activities and start busting cannabis consumers, growers, and retailers again. They say the U.S. Constitution requires Colorado to treat those people as criminals, regardless of what Colorado voters or legislators want. That position cannot be reconciled with the 10th Amendment, which says "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Writing state criminal laws is not a power that the Constitution delegates to the federal government.
Smith et al., whose lawsuit is joined by four sheriffs from Nebraska and Kansas who also were offended by Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana, concede that the CSA does not override all state drug policy choices. "Under 21 U.S.C. § 903," they note, "the CSA shall not 'be construed' to 'occupy the field' in which the CSA operates 'to the exclusion of anytate law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within' the state's authority. Rather, Section 903 provides that state laws are preempted only when 'a positive conflict' exists between a provision of the CSA and a state law' so that the two cannot consistently stand together." But the sheriffs claim Amendment 64 creates such a conflict. "The enforcement of the CSA violates Colorado law," they say, "and conversely adherence to Colorado law violates the CSA."
That is clearly not true for most of the provisions that Smith et al. are challenging. If Colorado cops stop arresting pot smokers, the pot smokers are violating the CSA, but the cops are not. Likewise with people who grow and transfer marijuana, whether money changes hands or not. They are violating federal law, but the police officers who refrain from dragging them away in handcuffs are not. Conversely, a federal agent who arrests a cannabis grower, seller, or consumer for violating the CSA is not doing anything forbidden by Colorado law.
The sheriffs say Amendment 64 "in some cases" not only allows but "requir[es]" the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. That would indeed be a positive conflict, since it would be impossible to obey both state and federal law. But unless I missed it, the complaint do not cite any actual examples of state-mandated CSA violations.
The sheriffs' strongest argument echoes the central claim of Nebraska and Oklahoma's anti-legalization lawsuit: that Colorado's marijuana regulations "embed state and local government actors with private actors in a state-sanctioned and state-supervised industry which is intended to, and does, cultivate, package, and distribute marijuana for commercial and private possession and use in violation of the CSA." In other words, the state's stamp of approval for cannabusinesses goes beyond declining to punish marijuana offenses by actively promoting them. That is one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say a marijuana license merely certifies that the holder has met the criteria for escaping punishment under state law. It does not make him immune to punishment under the CSA, and it does not require him to violate that statute.
Suppose Colorado took this criticism to heart and stopped regulating the marijuana industry. Anyone would be free to grow or sell marijuana without having to seek the state's blessing. Libertarians might welcome that outcome, but I doubt the sheriffs would. In any case, the existence of state regulations does nothing to strengthen the sheriffs' argument that they have suffered a personal injury justifying a lawsuit because they are not allowed to bust pot smokers anymore.
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/i...galization-should-overturned.html#post2500230
This looks like proof they can just come and take your pony away, anytime they want..WOW!
I thought that CO. constitution was in stone?
Maybe like mud...Dunno?
I am not trying to start a fight here...I want to make that clear!
But when I get laughed at for stating the truth, it gets under my skin.
Now on to the very friendly debate!
You had stated in the past that CO. has a constitution that is rock solid.
In fact you laughed at me when i suggested the feds could put a stop to your legal cannabis anytime they wish.
You said no way this could ever happen without a vote of the people and by the people.
Please check your facts.... seems your constitution will not stop a federal cop from arresting anyone they want in CO. today.
Yes, they can pretend not to notice if they so choose, but it is the penitentiary for you if they wish to prosecute you under the current law.
Here is something to back up my claim.
Colorado: Sheriffs Say Marijuana Legalization Should Be Overturned
Today six Colorado sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to reverse marijuana legalization in their state, which they say should be overturned because it makes them uncomfortable. Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith and his counterparts in five other counties say Amendment 64, the marijuana legalization measure that is now part of Colorado's constitution, has made their jobs harder by creating a conflict between state and federal law. "When these Colorado Sheriffs encounter marijuana while performing their duties," their complaint says, "each is placed in the position of having to choose between violating his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and violating his oath to uphold the Colorado Constitution." This supposed dilemma arises from Smith et al.'s mistaken assumption that they have an obligation to help the federal government enforce its ban on marijuana.
According to the Supreme Court's extremely generous reading of the power to regulate interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to ban cultivation, possession, and distribution of marijuana, even when those activities are permitted under state law and do not cross state lines (in fact, even when they are confined entirely to the privacy of someone's home). The federal government therefore may continue to enforce marijuana prohibition in Colorado. But contrary to what the sheriffs seem to think, that does not mean they are required to lend a hand, notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, which makes valid acts of Congress "the supreme law of the land." Under our federalist system, Congress has no authority to dragoon state and local officials into enforcing its laws - a point the Court made clear in Printz v. United States, a 1997 case involving federally mandated background checks for gun buyers.
Under the "anti-commandeering principle" that the Court applied in Printz, requiring local cops to enforce the federal ban on marijuana would be clearly unconstitutional. So when a Colorado cop encounters someone 21 or older with an ounce or less of marijuana (the limit set by state law) and does not confiscate it as contraband under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), he is not violating his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Likewise if he finds six or fewer plants in someone's home and leaves them there or if he passes a state-licensed pot shop and does not try to shut it down.
Similarly, the U.S. Constitution does not require state legislators to mimic federal law by punishing everything Congress decides to treat as a crime. Yet Smith et al. argue that eliminating state penalties for marijuana-related activities violates the CSA and therefore the Supremacy Clause. They are asking the U.S. District Court in Colorado to overturn all the sections of Amendment 64 that say specified activities involving marijuana - including possession and home cultivation as well as commercial production and distribution by state-licensed businesses - "are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Colorado law."
To put it another way, the sheriffs want a federal court order requiring Colorado to recriminalize these activities and start busting cannabis consumers, growers, and retailers again. They say the U.S. Constitution requires Colorado to treat those people as criminals, regardless of what Colorado voters or legislators want. That position cannot be reconciled with the 10th Amendment, which says "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Writing state criminal laws is not a power that the Constitution delegates to the federal government.
Smith et al., whose lawsuit is joined by four sheriffs from Nebraska and Kansas who also were offended by Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana, concede that the CSA does not override all state drug policy choices. "Under 21 U.S.C. § 903," they note, "the CSA shall not 'be construed' to 'occupy the field' in which the CSA operates 'to the exclusion of any
That is clearly not true for most of the provisions that Smith et al. are challenging. If Colorado cops stop arresting pot smokers, the pot smokers are violating the CSA, but the cops are not. Likewise with people who grow and transfer marijuana, whether money changes hands or not. They are violating federal law, but the police officers who refrain from dragging them away in handcuffs are not. Conversely, a federal agent who arrests a cannabis grower, seller, or consumer for violating the CSA is not doing anything forbidden by Colorado law.
The sheriffs say Amendment 64 "in some cases" not only allows but "requir[es]" the cultivation and distribution of marijuana. That would indeed be a positive conflict, since it would be impossible to obey both state and federal law. But unless I missed it, the complaint do not cite any actual examples of state-mandated CSA violations.
The sheriffs' strongest argument echoes the central claim of Nebraska and Oklahoma's anti-legalization lawsuit: that Colorado's marijuana regulations "embed state and local government actors with private actors in a state-sanctioned and state-supervised industry which is intended to, and does, cultivate, package, and distribute marijuana for commercial and private possession and use in violation of the CSA." In other words, the state's stamp of approval for cannabusinesses goes beyond declining to punish marijuana offenses by actively promoting them. That is one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say a marijuana license merely certifies that the holder has met the criteria for escaping punishment under state law. It does not make him immune to punishment under the CSA, and it does not require him to violate that statute.
Suppose Colorado took this criticism to heart and stopped regulating the marijuana industry. Anyone would be free to grow or sell marijuana without having to seek the state's blessing. Libertarians might welcome that outcome, but I doubt the sheriffs would. In any case, the existence of state regulations does nothing to strengthen the sheriffs' argument that they have suffered a personal injury justifying a lawsuit because they are not allowed to bust pot smokers anymore.
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/i...galization-should-overturned.html#post2500230
This looks like proof they can just come and take your pony away, anytime they want..WOW!
I thought that CO. constitution was in stone?
Maybe like mud...Dunno?
I am not trying to start a fight here...I want to make that clear!
But when I get laughed at for stating the truth, it gets under my skin.
Now on to the very friendly debate!
Please, Shaggy. The feds can obviously shut down retail any time they please. I never offered otherwise. What they can't do is effectively enforce federal law wrt personal growing w/o state help.
What I have said is that state authorities are powerless to bust personal growers who observe plant count limitations & that makes them reticent to bust small growers at all w/o proof of dealing. The first time they knock down the door of a legal personal grower they'll be on the losing end of an enormous lawsuit & they know it. Here in Denver, they show no signs of going anywhere near that proposition.
The lawsuits by NE, OK & some silly Sheriffs? Pfft. They demand that the Judiciary encroach on the prerogatives of the Executive branch in ridiculous ways. They can't make the feds enforce the CSA wrt retail any more than they can wrt MMJ. In the highly unlikely event that they get a favorable ruling, all it'll do is deprive the state of revenue, put the whole thing back underground. It's all conservative base pandering hurf-burf.
Feds busting CO legal growers raises the possibilities of prosecutors' worst nightmare, jury nullification. They'll play Hell finding a CO jury that will convict a CO legal personal grower & they know it. They're not going there, either, particularly given current DoJ enforcement guidelines.
You might want to get behind current legalization efforts in your state-
http://www.theweedblog.com/proposed-language-released-for-michigan-marijuana-legalization-effort/
Constraints on personal growers in that are considerably more relaxed than those in CO.
Michigan allows citizen sponsored initiatives to amend the state constitution, something that ties the hands of the legislature entirely, so get behind it.
What I have said is that state authorities are powerless to bust personal growers who observe plant count limitations & that makes them reticent to bust small growers at all w/o proof of dealing. The first time they knock down the door of a legal personal grower they'll be on the losing end of an enormous lawsuit & they know it. Here in Denver, they show no signs of going anywhere near that proposition.
The lawsuits by NE, OK & some silly Sheriffs? Pfft. They demand that the Judiciary encroach on the prerogatives of the Executive branch in ridiculous ways. They can't make the feds enforce the CSA wrt retail any more than they can wrt MMJ. In the highly unlikely event that they get a favorable ruling, all it'll do is deprive the state of revenue, put the whole thing back underground. It's all conservative base pandering hurf-burf.
Feds busting CO legal growers raises the possibilities of prosecutors' worst nightmare, jury nullification. They'll play Hell finding a CO jury that will convict a CO legal personal grower & they know it. They're not going there, either, particularly given current DoJ enforcement guidelines.
You might want to get behind current legalization efforts in your state-
http://www.theweedblog.com/proposed-language-released-for-michigan-marijuana-legalization-effort/
Constraints on personal growers in that are considerably more relaxed than those in CO.
Michigan allows citizen sponsored initiatives to amend the state constitution, something that ties the hands of the legislature entirely, so get behind it.
You're right. See my edit.
If you think your state in untouchable, you may want to rethink things a bit.
@ Jhhnn
You had stated in the past that CO. has a constitution that is rock solid.
In fact you laughed at me when i suggested the feds could put a stop to your legal cannabis anytime they wish.
You said no way this could ever happen without a vote of the people and by the people.
Legalized Marijuana Would Be Eliminated Under A Christie Presidency
Gov. Chris Christie vowed Sunday to eliminate legalized marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington if he's elected president.
The governor, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," said his administration would use federal rules that outlaw marijuana to clamp down on states that legalized recreational pot use.
"Yes sir," Christie told host John Dickerson when asked whether he'd go after Colorado and Washington.
"If you were president would you return the federal prosecutions in the states of Colorado, Washington states?" Dickerson asked.
"Yes," Christie said.
"So, if somebody's enjoying that now in their state, if you're president, that's getting turned off?" Dickerson continued.
"Correct," Christie responded.
Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational marijuana, which is still outlawed under federal rules. However, President Obama's administration hasn't penalized the states nor forced them to role back the initiatives that voters in those states approved.
I wish to play nice, just presenting the facts here.
@ Jhhnn
You had stated in the past that CO. has a constitution that is rock solid.
In fact you laughed at me when i suggested the feds could put a stop to your legal cannabis anytime they wish.
You said no way this could ever happen without a vote of the people and by the people.
Legalized Marijuana Would Be Eliminated Under A Christie Presidency
Gov. Chris Christie vowed Sunday to eliminate legalized marijuana in states like Colorado and Washington if he's elected president.
The governor, speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," said his administration would use federal rules that outlaw marijuana to clamp down on states that legalized recreational pot use.
"Yes sir," Christie told host John Dickerson when asked whether he'd go after Colorado and Washington.
"If you were president would you return the federal prosecutions in the states of Colorado, Washington states?" Dickerson asked.
"Yes," Christie said.
"So, if somebody's enjoying that now in their state, if you're president, that's getting turned off?" Dickerson continued.
"Correct," Christie responded.
Colorado and Washington have legalized recreational marijuana, which is still outlawed under federal rules. However, President Obama's administration hasn't penalized the states nor forced them to role back the initiatives that voters in those states approved.
I wish to play nice, just presenting the facts here.
Mitt said the same thing in 2012. I doubt it'll be any better received in 2016 When CO has the numbers from years of successful legalization. The truth is their greatest enemy & we let it out of the bag.
Of course the Feds can shut down retail, just like they can shut down MMJ entirely. It's the same law in both cases, cannabis being assigned to schedule 1. I never said any different.
Prohibitionists' problem now is that cannabis law is utterly unenforceable w/o the efforts of state & local authorities. It's also unenforceable w/o the consent of the people. They'll play hell getting CO juries to convict anybody of exercising their rights under the state constitution so they won't even go there.
They're beat & they know it but they'll hold out as long as possible, of course, like the Nazis after the battle of Stalingrad. That was the turning point in WW2 and legalization in CO & WA was the turning point in the marijuana war.
Christie won't be the nominee, anyway. It'll be Jeb or Scott Walker, the latter only because he's better at interpreting the script. They're Republicans, so just follow the money & that's the way it's lining up. The old line Repub money is on Jeb while the more radical Koch bros & friends money is on Walker.
Neither can win the general election.
I haven't drank any beer in the past 10 years that wasn't brewed in Orygun. Why would I some of the best beer in the world is made here. Same goes for cannabis. I haven't smoked anything that's no locally grown for more than 10 years. Don't
Even start me about wine, same thing besdt in the world. If it sounds like I'm biased it because I am. We fought long and hard for legalization don't come here and screw it up pleassde.
Even start me about wine, same thing besdt in the world. If it sounds like I'm biased it because I am. We fought long and hard for legalization don't come here and screw it up pleassde.
Lets here some more on this subject.
The speculation in this thread is wild!
Isn't it?
As far as personal growing is concerned it seems as if OR may be the best at this point in time.
On the commercial side of things I think CO has their shit on lock. CO wins this for now.
Lets see how things look in another year.
Isn't it?
As far as personal growing is concerned it seems as if OR may be the best at this point in time.
On the commercial side of things I think CO has their shit on lock. CO wins this for now.
Lets see how things look in another year.
