|
Warchicken posted:Help, my child has eaten too many marijuana gummy bears! What cartoons should he watch? The important question is Dorito's or Lay's.
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
Get your kids hooked on healthier munchies today! Get a free bag of carrot sticks with every eighth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Get your kids hooked on healthier munchies today! Get a free bag of carrot sticks with every eighth.  That's one way to get kids to eat their vegetables.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:The weed they grow is poo poo, and it's being grown under the radar deep in cartel territory far from any developed infrastructure. Once again, weed is a weed, you can grow it anywhere, and it doesn't take long to get big enough to bud. If it's ever legalized you won't need the cartel's "infrastructure" of mules and tunnels and poo poo, you'll be able to just load it on trucks or trains or ships or whatver you want. You really think Monsanto wants to have their weed grown in the middle of a jungle in Pueblo del Bumfuck as opposed to in a nice mechanized plantation in Iowa? Do you know anything about commercial agriculture? Aw gently caress I'm trying to catch up on this thread but this really got me, sorry for responding to a post ten pages ago. I live in NorCal, there are definitely cartel grows in the woods of the Emerald Triangle that are producing really, really good outdoor weed at the expense of the local environment. Its actually a huge problem, so huge that the feds and the local cops don't seem to give a gently caress about anything other than dangerously excessive indoor grows or outdoor scenes started by Cartels in national forests that destroy our environment in the name of profit. There have also been cases of cartels kidnapping laborers and then threatening to kill their families if they leave or if they get robbed/raided. Will legalization solve this? Probably not in my opinion. Weed is relatively expensive to grow (if you want to do it right) and I really don't see how legalization is going to substantially lower the street price which seems to me to actually reflect overhead costs instead of the legal risk. I am well aware of mexican brick weed and how hard it sucks but that's not all the cartels are up to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
nm
i say swears online fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Aug 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Good tobacco from a fancy shop with plenty of jars to smell and boxes of fancy matches to give out runs in the ballpark of $5 an ounce, while pot is around 50 times as much (9-13/gram). I do not believe marijuana is fifty times harder to grow than tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
Not to mention that once it is legal everyone has to show their papers and run their operations by the books, something the cartels probably won't like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 13:08
|
|
|
brokowski posted:Weed is relatively expensive to grow (if you want to do it right) and I really don't see how legalization is going to substantially lower the street price which seems to me to actually reflect overhead costs instead of the legal risk. Relative to what?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
How exactly is the local environment impacted by plants growing outdoors? You framed this as "at the expense of the local environment" but weren't clear on what this entails.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:06
|
|
|
Fiend posted:How exactly is the local environment impacted by plants growing outdoors? You framed this as "at the expense of the local environment" but weren't clear on what this entails. I assume deforestation and loss of soil nutrients.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I assume deforestation and loss of soil nutrients. Are the cartels into the logging business now? Edit: yup http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-mexico-forests-fall-prey-to-crime-mafias/2011/07/03/gIQAUApL0H_story.html KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Not to mention that once it is legal everyone has to show their papers and run their operations by the books, something the cartels probably won't like. Why would they have to do this? That's no more valid than "since it is illegal no one grows it". There still will be a market for illegal marijuana, unless it is a complete free-for-all and not taxed at all. There's a market for tax-avoided cigarettes after all. Cartels are pretty used to hiding their operations already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Fiend posted:How exactly is the local environment impacted by plants growing outdoors? You framed this as "at the expense of the local environment" but weren't clear on what this entails. Many ways. For one thing, it makes the forests dangerous and discourages hiking for obvious reasons(these grows are often guarded.) For another, growing usually requires diverting a water source. For another, there's a huge mess- these camps require a lot of food, nutrients and supplies and growers usually leave them when they're done, empty wrappers, human feces and all. Sometimes, they even bring up gasoline generators. Also, they apply heavy doses of fertilizer which can mess with the ecosystem, especially when large quantities of P-containing nutrients are released into streams. quote:
Because if they don't follow the regulatory framework, they won't be able to sell from any licensed store, which will cut them off from most of their customer base. In addition, the cops will be hunting down the (now relatively few) illegal growers while leaving the legal growers alone, which increases the cost of the black market pot. How do you expect black-market products to compete with less visibility and higher prices? As for the comparison with cigarettes, no, there is no appreciable black market for cigarettes. There is a black market for smuggling legal cigarettes from a low-tax state to a higher-tax state, but if you can show me any illegal tobacco plantations or illegal cigarette rolling factories operating in the US, I'd like to see it. The more appropriate comparison is alcohol and while there is a small market for black-market booze, it's pretty limited to Appalachia, which has a long cultural history of moonshining, lax enforcement and a taste for unaged whiskey which is rarely sold in stores.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
brokowski posted:Aw gently caress I'm trying to catch up on this thread but this really got me, sorry for responding to a post ten pages ago. I live in NorCal, there are definitely cartel grows in the woods of the Emerald Triangle that are producing really, really good outdoor weed at the expense of the local environment. Its actually a huge problem, so huge that the feds and the local cops don't seem to give a gently caress about anything other than dangerously excessive indoor grows or outdoor scenes started by Cartels in national forests that destroy our environment in the name of profit. There have also been cases of cartels kidnapping laborers and then threatening to kill their families if they leave or if they get robbed/raided. Will legalization solve this? Probably not in my opinion. Weed is relatively expensive to grow (if you want to do it right) and I really don't see how legalization is going to substantially lower the street price which seems to me to actually reflect overhead costs instead of the legal risk. I am well aware of mexican brick weed and how hard it sucks but that's not all the cartels are up to. Do you object to vineyards? What do you think existed before they were planted? There are over 800 grow ops... err... I mean vineyards in the North Coast grape growing region. KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Growing weed has similar environmental impact as any large-scale agricultural operation. Farm's are not environmentally friendly, but there is nothing special about growing weed per se, and it certainly shouldn't be an argument against legalization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
brokowski posted:Aw gently caress I'm trying to catch up on this thread but this really got me, sorry for responding to a post ten pages ago. I live in NorCal, there are definitely cartel grows in the woods of the Emerald Triangle that are producing really, really good outdoor weed at the expense of the local environment. Its actually a huge problem, so huge that the feds and the local cops don't seem to give a gently caress about anything other than dangerously excessive indoor grows or outdoor scenes started by Cartels in national forests that destroy our environment in the name of profit. There have also been cases of cartels kidnapping laborers and then threatening to kill their families if they leave or if they get robbed/raided. Will legalization solve this? Probably not in my opinion. Weed is relatively expensive to grow (if you want to do it right) and I really don't see how legalization is going to substantially lower the street price which seems to me to actually reflect overhead costs instead of the legal risk. I am well aware of mexican brick weed and how hard it sucks but that's not all the cartels are up to. This is some dumb racist bullshit. You know what evidence exists that The Cartels! are operating in Northern California? Tortillas and western shirts found at grow sites. Seriously, this is "evidence" that I have literally heard from the sheriffs dept in Mendocino. And that's all they've got because no one ever seems to catch anyone on these supposed cartel grows. They're like weed bigfoot. If you'd like to point me to an actual link between grow operations and Mexican organized crime, I'm game but everything I've seen is more consistent with bad grows being blamed on those goddamned mexicans ruining it for us good white people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:As for the comparison with cigarettes, no, there is no appreciable black market for cigarettes. There is a black market for smuggling legal cigarettes from a low-tax state to a higher-tax state, but if you can show me any illegal tobacco plantations or illegal cigarette rolling factories operating in the US, I'd like to see it. The more appropriate comparison is alcohol and while there is a small market for black-market booze, it's pretty limited to Appalachia, which has a long cultural history of moonshining, lax enforcement and a taste for unaged whiskey which is rarely sold in stores. You are right, it is pretty different. I imagine it would be more true of cigarettes if it were easier to grow/there was an established community of illegal growers, but it's still pretty different and I can't generalize from there. There will likely be cannabis tax arbitrage, but I guess I can't say if there will be large-scale hidden illegal grows. vvv: The size of the market depends on the amount of taxation weed undergoes. If weed production drops in price by 10x but is taxed so prices are the same to the end user, then there is going to be a large black market. If it is taxed in line with regular sales tax there will be no black market. (If anyone wants I'll shore up that prediction with numbers and toxx-bet for charity.) I would be pretty tempted to dodge taxes as a buyer if it were taxed to current prices and I knew a grower. Also, I suspect that the way it would work is you couch your tax dodging operation in a legal grow, so most of it you grow/sell legally, and maybe 10-20% you sell tax free. I don't think the government can reasonably police your yield so I'm not sure what they could do. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
I would recommend that you not worry too much about tax dodging in this situation, when you stack it up against the prospect of armed government thugs coming into your home/business and taking from you all of your means of production, profits, and distribution, it just makes good sense to pay the tax. Not to mention the price is going to fall, meaning the only way to stay competitive is to come into the market with a well advertised product or sell out to whatever agri-business decides to move into the weed space first. At the same time I guess I am framing my thinking against the current state of affairs, and the punishments for tax dodging are typically less than the strait up armed robbery which is the MO of the DEA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:You are right, it is pretty different. I imagine it would be more true of cigarettes if it were easier to grow/there was an established community of illegal growers, but it's still pretty different and I can't generalize from there. There will likely be cannabis tax arbitrage, but I guess I can't say if there will be large-scale hidden illegal grows. I don't care about you toxxing yourself but I would like to know what your estimate would be on the final price after legalization and taxation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
I am kind of curious how much you are paying for weed? Perhaps that is why you hold this opinion. In my personal experience (bay area) it is actually quite affordable at both black and grey market prices. Also I would hesitate to draw comparisons to consumption and sourcing of cigarettes which are very addictive. As a former smoker I can tell you I would often times pay exorbitant prices (downtown corner liquor stores for example) for a pack because I needed it right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I don't care about you toxxing yourself but I would like to know what your estimate would be on the final price after legalization and taxation. I am not qualified to predict how it will be taxed. If I were forced to guess I would say something like "whatever keeps the prices the same, maybe a flat $30 per eighth". I hope it's really low since sin taxes are fundamentally regressive(unless they are for sins like yacht ownership). My prediction is parameterized by the level of taxation, and basically just says the more taxation, the larger the black market will be. This sounds pretty obvious written out, I don't think it is all that bold of a prediction. More specifically, I think that if weed is taxed to current levels despite large(>5x) production cost drops, some significant fraction of purchases(at least 5%) will be untaxed. I think without any taxation, weed would be like, a fifth to a tenth of current prices, but I'm not even that firm in that prediction, and with agribusiness participation it could be even less. I guess I don't even know where the taxes will be levied, and if they will be primarily on the grower->distributor or the distributor->buyer side. (The black market will be larger if its primarily the buy side, since the grower with the land interests to protect can claim plausible deniability if it turns out their customer is selling on the black market.) EDIT: I don't think it will be unaffordable in either case, but I think there is always incentive to make money if you can. No one is going to make a stand and not pay taxes on principle, I think it is more likely to be a crime of opportunity on the part of the buyer than one of forethought and planning. If weed is $40/eighth at the store and $5/eighth from this grower you know, it seems easy just to buy a whole bunch. I guess this is unprecendented and doesn't happen for currently legal drugs, so I ought to say what is different here. I think it is primarily the existing weed distribution infrastructure. I bet that, if weed were legalized, former dealers would still have hookups on cheaper weed, and weed users already have those contacts available. I'm guessing this did not happen after prohibition, and I think part of why is that alcohol wasn't taxed to such a heavy degree. I am ignorant as to how alcohol distribution worked during prohibition, was it different than weed is now? Paying 40/eighth given a production cost price plunge is a huge tax compared to anything levied on alcohol. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
RAND, a well-respected think tank, released a study in 2010 about the effect of legalization on the price. They predicted a drop in price of around 80%, to as little as $38 /ounce before tax. Here's an article discussing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
I knew that my post would cause a lot of objections so please let me try to clarify my position. 1.) 800peepee51doodoo posted:This is some dumb racist bullshit. You know what evidence exists that The Cartels! are operating in Northern California? Tortillas and western shirts found at grow sites. Seriously, this is "evidence" that I have literally heard from the sheriffs dept in Mendocino. And that's all they've got because no one ever seems to catch anyone on these supposed cartel grows. They're like weed bigfoot. If you'd like to point me to an actual link between grow operations and Mexican organized crime, I'm game but everything I've seen is more consistent with bad grows being blamed on those goddamned mexicans ruining it for us good white people. Wow, my apologies, seriously. I really should have known better than to trust the local paper and word of mouth here in Humboldt. A quick google search that I should have made before posting has shown me a lot of allegations but no real definitive proof. What you heard from mendo is actually pretty believable and unfortunately makes sense. In regards to this being dumb racist bullshit, it seems you are right. Its weird because I hear this viewpoint all the time (its those mexicans in the woods) and it usually pisses me off because its obviously passing the buck. I have been falsely assuming my whole life that while these allegations seem like a way to deflect attention from shady growing practices that a lot of people utilize there might be a kernel of truth. I'm honestly kind of ashamed that I did not do a quick google search before posting. This is the only article I could find that seemed even semi legit: http://www.times-standard.com/ci_7247948 2.) Broken Machine posted:RAND, a well-respected think tank, released a study in 2010 about the effect of legalization on the price. They predicted a drop in price of around 80%, to as little as $38 /ounce before tax. Here's an article discussing it. Now here is where I'm probably not going to make a lot of friends, however I am open to being wrong, this is a complicated issue and I joined this forum to learn from others after all. The marijuana market appears to have already experienced a bubble and then the collapse of said bubble. The price seems to have bottomed out at around 2k for a lb of dank indoor and around 1k for quality outdoor. To me, marijuana is like any other cash crop. Yes, you can definitely grow your own and end up with a quality product, however if you are doing indoor you need to pay for the electricity, water, nutrients, soil, etc and if you are doing hydro you need to closely monitor your set up or else you are going to lose your crop. Outdoor is another story but like with any other cash crop if you are growing it in large quantities and intend on selling it there is still going to be a significant amount of overhead costs. There is always going to be a market for weed, just like there is always going to be a market for tobacco( which is stupidly easy to grow), beer/wine, produce, whatever, no man is an island and all that. No one is making any money off of indoor weed right now unless they are blowing it up and really taking advantage of the black market. However most people that I know, which is a lot, are barely breaking even on their rent/electricity/water bills. If the average price for dank indoor drops below 2k and dank outdoor below 800 bucks I'll eat my hat or something. One more point on the article, although I can't read the whole study (could you copy and paste or something?) they are not clear at all about what kind of an ounce you would get for 38 bucks. I can get ounces of dank popcorn nugs for 20 bucks or free, but they still wouldn't dream of letting me walk away with an oz of larger, better manicured nugs for that price. One more thing that I have been wondering about is how the smell of outdoor grows will be dealt with with full legalization (which seems inevitable). There is a very real NIMBY attitude towards weed in NorCal communities which might lead to restrictions on growing your own weed. I'm a terrible writer but the overall point that I am trying to make is that weed is like any other product, sure it is easy to grow a plant or two for yourself, just like it easy to brew your own beer or wine or grow your own tobacco. However not everyone is able to do so and so they will buy it from growers, who have to set a certain price to be able to stay in business, just like everybody else. It seems to me that length of time that marijuana has enjoyed it's quasi legal status in humboldt and other counties has already allowed the price to bottom out and is now in most cases reflecting the overhead costs involved. 3.) KingEup posted:Do you object to vineyards? What do you think existed before they were planted? Hahaha, wtf?!?1 No I have no objections to vineyards if they are being ran in a sustainable, environmentally ethical way, and I am aware that there are plenty of vineyards that are not doing that, just like grow scenes! Whether they are cartel run or not there is a huge problem with grows draining water from creeks, pesticide run off, clear cutting, and most recently a king fisher, which is an endangered species was found poisened at a grow. I know many people that grow and do so organically and ethically. 3.) Powercrazy posted:Growing weed has similar environmental impact as any large-scale agricultural operation. Farm's are not environmentally friendly, but there is nothing special about growing weed per se, and it certainly shouldn't be an argument against legalization. I am fully in favor of legalization out of the hope that it will come with regulations that will help with this problem. I am also not a fan of large scale agriculture precisely because of those environmental impacts... a lovely poster posted:Relative to what? Indoor requires a hefty power bill, and the start up costs. Yeah you can just grow your own outdoor for pretty cheap which is really imo the best option but for someone to grow their own stash for a year seems like it may be a stretch with the smell and all that NIMBY bs. I grow my own produce and make my own booze but I still buy beer and produce because of a.) my living situation and b.)there is booze that i enjoy that i can not make, and I am willing to spend the extra $$ for quality. How many people do you know that brew their own beer and wine and grow their own tobacco and tea? There is always going to be a market for Marijuana. As I write this stupid and long post though I can see outdoor actually going for around 500$ a lb minimum. 4.) Blind Melon posted:Good tobacco from a fancy shop with plenty of jars to smell and boxes of fancy matches to give out runs in the ballpark of $5 an ounce, while pot is around 50 times as much (9-13/gram). I do not believe marijuana is fifty times harder to grow than tobacco. I am open to being wrong but I feel as though this is sort of an apples-oranges comparison. This post is long enough as it is, so i'm not going to get too involved with this, but no, I don't think pot is 50x harder to grow, probably more like 10x harder in terms of expenses and assumed loss from mold/mites. If you have any objections let me know and I'll respond to them. To who ever reads this, I am interested in expanding my perspective on this complicated issue, so feel free to point out anything you think that I am wrong about. I am constantly being exposed to an extremely narrow minded bias on this issue so any opposing opinions are welcome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
brokowski posted:It seems to me that length of time that marijuana has enjoyed it's quasi legal status in humboldt and other counties has already allowed the price to bottom out and is now in most cases reflecting the overhead costs involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
brokowski posted:If the average price for dank indoor drops below 2k and dank outdoor below 800 bucks I'll eat my hat or something. One more point on the article, although I can't read the whole study (could you copy and paste or something?) they are not clear at all about what kind of an ounce you would get for 38 bucks. I can get ounces of dank popcorn nugs for 20 bucks or free, but they still wouldn't dream of letting me walk away with an oz of larger, better manicured nugs for that price. It surely requires effort and skill to grow high end marijuana, but $800 per pound is an absurdly high price for almost any plant, and on the scale of difficulty marijuana is not anywhere near the difficult end. edit: I should clarify that I'm not saying that it's impossible for marijuana to cost $800 per pound in a legal market. I'm sure individual brands could find some success at that price point, much like it's possible to buy a bottle of wine for $800. The point is that if you could grow legally, you could do so at a very high level of quality at a price point well below $800 per pound. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:37
|
|
brokowski posted:To who ever reads this, I am interested in expanding my perspective on this complicated issue, so feel free to point out anything you think that I am wrong about. I am constantly being exposed to an extremely narrow minded bias on this issue so any opposing opinions are welcome. I think you're discounting the extent to which companies are ridiculously good at minimizing costs while maximizing output. The most expensive piece of produce I can think of is saffron, which apparently runs for (on the high end) $5,000/lb. If you think growing weed is hard, take a look at the saffron growth and harvesting process. And mind you, it can be had for cheaper. Marijuana is nowhere near as difficult to grow. See also twodot's examples. Marijuana can be grown almost anywhere and I'm sure once some reasonably large companies have some time to gently caress around, they'll figure out a process that makes cultivation a breeze.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
Pot is called weed for a reason. It's basically a weed. It grows like a weed. It is easier to grow than most any other crop we mass produce and is less damaging to the surrounding soil than stuff like corn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
brokowski posted:3.) 'We may have destroyed part of the forest to plant our vineyard, but don't worry last year we decided that it was a good idea to become 'sustainable'. In other words we simply updated our website; adding words like 'ethical', 'environmentally friendly' and 'organic' to convey this to our customers.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Why build a traditional farm when sites could go hydroponic? It's not like this is a novel idea in the pot world. Hell, remember this? Turn some of those old missile silos into grow ops. Repurpose buildings in Detroit into farms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
I live in a tiny college town in the north coast called Arcata. Our local economy is so dependent on cannabis (people get paid pretty well to trim plants and stuff) that many think that legalization will make our local economy collapse in what is already an economically depressed area. It's a little sad  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
KingEup posted:'We may have destroyed part of the forest to plant our vineyard, but don't worry last year we decided that it was a good idea to become 'sustainable'. In other words we simply updated our website; adding words like 'ethical', 'environmentally friendly' and 'organic' to convey this to our customers.' Well there's a big difference between the worst of Big Agriculture and illicit grow operations, that being that illicit grow operations want to be in as secluded a spot as possible. This often leads them to set up in the back country of State or National Parks and other areas that are supposed to be protected. It's just another reason to back legalization, seeing as how people won't want to be in the rear end end of nowhere if they don't have to avoid law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Lady Dank posted:I live in a tiny college town in the north coast called Arcata. Our local economy is so dependent on cannabis (people get paid pretty well to trim plants and stuff) that many think that legalization will make our local economy collapse in what is already an economically depressed area. It's a little sad I heard a lot of this attitude from growers in California before Prop. 19 went to the polls and ultimately lost. The thing is, they screwed themselves long-term to pursue short-term gains. The legalization chain reaction has already started in Washington and Colorado, aided greatly by the administration's decision to not interfere. Alaska, Oregon, California, Montana, Arizona and Nevada will legalize over the next few years. We'll probably see federal action to solidify state legalization shortly after, and then comes the great green boom. By resisting legalization California growers have put themselves at a huge comparative disadvantage to growers in Washington and Colorado who are already developing businesses to operate within a legal environment, virtually ensuring they won't be able to match the output, quality and prices of established producers in other states once federal prohibition is lifted. As for environmental impact, the Water Resources Board in my county is now involved in citing marijuana grows in remote areas because a lot of the growers have been engaging in illegal grading in the hills to improve their grow sites, which dramatically impacts erosion and river siltification.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
KingEup posted:'We may have destroyed part of the forest to plant our vineyard, but don't worry last year we decided that it was a good idea to become 'sustainable'. In other words we simply updated our website; adding words like 'ethical', 'environmentally friendly' and 'organic' to convey this to our customers.' Yeah, green washing is terrible and I am not in any way endorsing companies that do that. There are growers/wineries that are in fact dedicated to sustainable farming practices though and that is who I try to associate myself with. LuciferMorningstar posted:I think you're discounting the extent to which companies are ridiculously good at minimizing costs while maximizing output. The most expensive piece of produce I can think of is saffron, which apparently runs for (on the high end) $5,000/lb. If you think growing weed is hard, take a look at the saffron growth and harvesting process. And mind you, it can be had for cheaper. Marijuana is nowhere near as difficult to grow. See also twodot's examples. twodot posted:Wasabi is hard to grow, it basically only grows near certain rivers in Japan. It's so expensive that 99% of things marketed as wasabi are not wasabi at all and just horseradish. You can buy it in America for ~$60 per pound. 800-2000 per pound is right around the price range for black truffles. Black truffles are so hard to grow that humans didn't succeeded in cultivating it until the 1800s. Even now, we literally have to harvest it by hand using either pigs or specially trained dogs, again so expensive that 99% of "truffle" products are actually just using synthesized compounds that were found to be some of the major flavor components of truffles. I could make my own wine for less than a dollar, the cost of a gallon mason jar, however 7/10 times I pay about ten times as much for a bottle of wine. I grow my own tobacco which costs me 3 bucks for chicken manure, thirty minutes of digging out a bed and a minuscule amount of water. Sometimes I buy it at an insane mark up at the store. Why is weed any different? I live in Arcata and while prices are definately going to drop with full legalization, I don't believe that it is going to ruin the market. I don't really try and voice this opinion there, so thanks for helping me flesh it out over the Internet. I could talk about this for days and I really want my current viewpoint to be challenged as much as possible so keep it coming folks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
brokowski posted:Yeah, green washing is terrible and I am not in any way endorsing companies that do that. There are growers/wineries that are in fact dedicated to sustainable farming practices though and that is who I try to associate myself with. And what about the half century they did not operate sustainably?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
KingEup posted:And what about the half century they did not operate sustainably? Like I said I don't approve and I don't buy my wine ( and really anything that i possibly can)from companies that have a sordid history, same goes for beer. you have a great point and I agree with it completely, I don't see where we are disagreeing. I'm cynical as gently caress but I know for a fact that here, at least, you can get pretty much anything except for gasoline and government services that operate on tax dollars and have a clean conscience. I am not academically minded and I know a lot of people here are so I'm just going to throw out the question of how the price of alcohol changed befor during and after prohibition and if this is applicable to the current situation with weed? I used to be in firmly in the "legalization is going to ruin our economy" camp but lately I have had serious doubts. Humboldt is not a place to voice those doubts so thanks for helping me sort this out folks. brokowski fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
I guess I was trying to ascertain whether you have a problem with land being cleared to plant cannabis. It would appear you do not given you are okay with land being cleared to plant vineyards; provided they are using sustainable techniques.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Eh it's like anything else where it depends on the circumstances. I know it sounds wishy-washy but I feel like its a bit naive to talk about land clearance for ag in such black and white terms. There are examples of it being done in an environmentally sound way and examples of it being done in a not so environmentally n friendly way for a lot of different crops. What are your thoughts on this matter? You seem to be mainly asking questions, which is great, just curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
brokowski posted:Eh it's like anything else where it depends on the circumstances. I know it sounds wishy-washy but I feel like its a bit naive to talk about land clearance for ag in such black and white terms. There are examples of it being done in an environmentally sound way and examples of it being done in a not so environmentally n friendly way for a lot of different crops. What are your thoughts on this matter? You seem to be mainly asking questions, which is great, just curious. The point is that marijuana is not going to be particularly environmentally destructive, in large part because the overall volume of farming is so much lower. How many pounds of wheat, corn, tobacco, potato, broccoli does the average person go through in a year? Marijuana? Any new agricultural development for marijuana will be appropriately dealt with by existing agricultural regulations. Now, you (and I) may argue that agricultural regulations are generally inadequate, but that is a separate conversation and has little or nothing to do with marijuana or its legalization specifically. The unique environmental problems currently created by some outdoor grow-ops such as growing near national parks, harming protected species, or using inappropriate water sources have everything to do with the legal status of marijuana and nothing to do with anything inherent to marijuana cultivation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
This may be too bold an assumption, but I don't see how MJ is not legalized nationwide in the next 10-20 years. Given that, I'm trying to understand (guess!) how this industry will play out. Obviously some big players are going to get in on the game, but who? The tobacco companies? The beer companies? Vineyards? Farmers? Your Uncle Joe who's been growing indoors for a decade? Is there any current business that legalized MJ is likely to emulate? How about bars, cafes, smoke stores? How will the widespread bans on public cigarette smoking affect MJ smoking in cafes? And ultimately, how will the authorities ever get rid of the black market? They've not been able to while the product is illegal. Since weed is fairly easy to grow, why wouldn't a small time (IE not drug cartels but rather your Uncle Joe) black market persist indefinitely, since there's no longer any risk associated with it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:45 |
|
|
redshirt posted:This may be too bold an assumption, but I don't see how MJ is not legalized nationwide in the next 10-20 years. If it's at all analogous to what happened post alcohol prohibition, the largest current producers will just go legit. The main reason Gallo wines are such big business today is that they were already making lots of cheap wine during prohibition and once prohibition ended they already had all the infrastructure in place to go full-scale.(see http://www.amazon.com/Gallo-Be-Thy-Name-Dominate/dp/B008SM15IS) This is why businesses are willing to gamble on investing in pot production now in legal states -- once it goes fully legal everywhere it'll be too late to get that critical jump on the market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:06
|
|
