|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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) The big difference is there's never been an industrial infrastructure for marijuana, unlike alcohol. Any big time players would be jumping into this market from scratch.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
KingEup posted:I guess I was trying to ascertain whether you have a problem with land being cleared to plant cannabis. Basically, our local newspaper,the Arcata Eye,has a bit of a vendetta against growers and cites dumb reasons for it. It's mostly the crusade of one man. Humboldt as a whole (please don't move here without a job no matter how nice it sounds) is rather supportive of the local industry and i've heard stories of people who get in the way of the growers vanishing somewhere in the hills. Most of the opposition to legalization around here not only comes from old-school growers (i.e. generations of people from Garberville or rural Humboldt) but from people who consider it to be a bit of a local thing. The cannabis industry allows our poor, isolated county to enjoy a bit more attention and a higher standard of living than the rest of rural California, and nobody wants to see that taken away. Shes In Parties fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Potency will match the alcohol system we see today. Half of the sales well be low potency product that is selected for smooth taste and low coughing induction just like beer. The other half will be split between sort high potency product/extracts as liquor analogue and "name brand" mid tier potency products similar to wine. Another separate possible product is edibles but that seems more like a gimmick to be served at bars. It would mainly be baked goods which would limit people buying and storing it compared to extracts and dried plant form. It would be subject to additional regulation due to the nature of it. However depending on how it is regulated there could be less perishable products like candy bars. Most common product will be packaged pre rolled joints that don't knock you out in one hit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
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. It really all depends on the regulatory structure that is set up in each state. Colorado and Washington's systems effectively block big corporations from monopolizing the system in the way tobacco is monopolized, and I would expect to see a more alcohol-like than tobacco-like system in place federally - that is, Uncle Joe can grow all he wants for himself and his friends like a farmer might make apple cider, but the law will come down on him if he tries to avoid regulatory structures and sell to a wider market. Uncle Joe will have to get the equivalent of a craft brewery license if he wants to legally sell to the public. Edit: And the black market will have trouble competing with legal weed for 99% of customers. Would you drop by Uncle Joe's place (if he weren't your uncle and you didn't necessarily trust him fully) on the DL just to save a few bucks when you could go to the corner dispensary and get a product where the strain, cannabinoid balance, etc. are right on the label? I mean, maybe if Uncle Joe is selling an incredible home-bred strain, but if that's the case he'd make more money by upscaling and entering the legal market. You can still get moonshine in mason jars and poo poo like that but it's not the first choice for anyone who isn't just curious about how things were during prohibition or who isn't in a seriously dry county. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted: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? Yeah exactly. I'm in favor of legalization for this reason. As of right now the industry is completely wreaking havoc on the local environment. Legalizing would IMO not drop the price as dramatically as many growers claim and it would open up the industry to regulations and standards, which would be a godsend (hopefully). Lady Dank posted:Basically, our local newspaper,the Arcata Eye,has a bit of a vendetta against growers and cites dumb reasons for it. It's mostly the crusade of one man. Humboldt as a whole (please don't move here without a job no matter how nice it sounds) is rather supportive of the local industry and i've heard stories of people who get in the way of the growers vanishing somewhere in the hills. Most of the opposition to legalization around here not only comes from old-school growers (i.e. generations of people from Garberville or rural Humboldt) but from people who consider it to be a bit of a local thing. The cannabis industry allows our poor, isolated county to enjoy a bit more attention and a higher standard of living than the rest of rural California, and nobody wants to see that taken away. Yeah, that's a great summary of the issue. I hold the very controversial opinion that legalization probably won't change things too much around here, although I could very well be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
redshirt posted:The big difference is there's never been an industrial infrastructure for marijuana, unlike alcohol. Any big time players would be jumping into this market from scratch. They might be entering the market as a new producer, but it's not like there is a significant difference between cultivating one plant over another. Additionally, there is a wealth of knowledge already present on how to grow plants efficiently with high potency. It would be trivial for big tobacco or any other big crop grower to start growing weed. There isn't any barrier to entry. Large scale grows already exist and copying techniques already in place will be trivial. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:They might be entering the market as a new producer, but it's not like there is a significant difference between cultivating one plant over another. Additionally, there is a wealth of knowledge already present on how to grow plants efficiently with high potency. It would be trivial for big tobacco or any other big crop grower to start growing weed. There isn't any barrier to entry. Large scale grows already exist and copying techniques already in place will be trivial. Depending on the difference between plants, there is. In very broad terms, the difference between growing fruits versus grains or any other plant is very well apples and oranges. Some plants and varieties of plants need certain amounts of water, light, heat, and minerals for optimal growth that, for another plant, may be sub-optimal to wasteful or deadly to the crop. The closest crop to marijuana is tobacco since they both require large scale harvesting of the leaves and then drying them before sale. The drying facilities need certain conditions to be as quick and as effective as possible. Even then, I'm sure that there are different breeds of tobacco that need to be grown slightly differently to ensure the best product for investment. Such knowledge at an industrial scale is not currently present for marijuana, I don't think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
There are massive fields of pot being grown all over. The knowledge is there. It's just implementation. It's not really a complicated issue. It will take manpower, but it isn't really an overly complicated process. Plant seeds. Once they can be sexed remove males. Once females develop buds, harvest, and dry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 01:17
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Depending on the difference between plants, there is. Flowers. Not leaves, flowers  But seriously though, do you know how they dry tobacco? They hang it upside down in an old barn that's probably 60-70+ years old. There aren't really any 'certain conditions' other than getting decent airflow & keeping it from falling on the ground or getting wet.  Drying and curing cannabis en masse isn't much different in that aspect. It's how the cartel has been doing it forever. Now if you want a quality cannabis product, it's going to be dried in a humidity-controlled environment and monitored for pests constantly. Which is why the good stuff costs more at the street level. More maintenance goes into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 02:48
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:Another separate possible product is edibles but that seems more like a gimmick to be served at bars. It would mainly be baked goods which would limit people buying and storing it compared to extracts and dried plant form. It would be subject to additional regulation due to the nature of it. However depending on how it is regulated there could be less perishable products like candy bars. If we are speculating on what the future legal marijuana market will look like I think you might be underestimating the the impact that edibles are going to play. In the CO/CA MMJ market products like Cheeba Chews and Kiva/Blue Kudu Bars have quickly gained a reputation of being extremely reliable and effective medicine. What's more is that the companies that make them seem determined to increase the "respectability" of their brands; they are tested and labeled for THC content and feature well designed/attractive packaging. Kiva Bars come with a paper scale that tells you how to divide the bar into appropriate sized doses based on your need. Cheeba Chews has just created a new product that has a lower THC content and an elevated CBD content; providing less of a psychoactive effect but more body-wide pain relief (as with an indica). This sort of innovation and marketing in the edibles market coupled with expanded legal access is going to introduce edibles to a large market of those who, while they may shun smoking/vaping, will see no problem with a piece of candy that in many ways provides superior and safer relief for pain, anxiety, sleeplessness etc. than many of our current OTC remedies. Certainly there may be increased regulation on edibles as they can be fairly potent when ingested in improper amounts but the edible market especially has shown the strongest drive towards marketing their products as medicine that should be consumed correctly. I think from the edibles market we are going to see a trend towards isolating specific cannabinoids and creating products where there a very specific amounts of each tailored towards specific medical conditions. From this trend you will undoubtedly have the pharma industry creating pills that utilize cannabinoids. I would not be surprised to see, in a few decades, a thriving edible/pill market that has a large portion of customers who don't purchase herb at all but use edibles/pills in place of many of the OTC remedies we have today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
Somehow I think all this is going to be a sideshow to hemp production. The problem for outdoor growers is going to be maintaining a sensimilla crop with the enormous amounts of hemp pollen blowing all over the place and contaminating the hard won genetic diversity which thrives in the black market. Though I guess a genetically engineered female only brand of superhemp will become popular, for the same reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 08:31
|
|
|
Lady Dank posted:Basically, our local newspaper,the Arcata Eye,has a bit of a vendetta against growers and cites dumb reasons for it. It's mostly the crusade of one man. Humboldt as a whole (please don't move here without a job no matter how nice it sounds) is rather supportive of the local industry and i've heard stories of people who get in the way of the growers vanishing somewhere in the hills. Most of the opposition to legalization around here not only comes from old-school growers (i.e. generations of people from Garberville or rural Humboldt) but from people who consider it to be a bit of a local thing. The cannabis industry allows our poor, isolated county to enjoy a bit more attention and a higher standard of living than the rest of rural California, and nobody wants to see that taken away. I can see why there would be tension, pretty much all the counties along the pacific coast of the north-west are facing very similar headwinds and are desperate for income sources. Humboldt does rely on that income and maybe some tourism from the association. Oregon's solution might just be to allow logging to ramp up again as nuts as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
Hamsack posted:Certainly there may be increased regulation on edibles as they can be fairly potent when ingested in improper amounts but the edible market especially has shown the strongest drive towards marketing their products as medicine that should be consumed correctly. I think from the edibles market we are going to see a trend towards isolating specific cannabinoids and creating products where there a very specific amounts of each tailored towards specific medical conditions. From this trend you will undoubtedly have the pharma industry creating pills that utilize cannabinoids. I would not be surprised to see, in a few decades, a thriving edible/pill market that has a large portion of customers who don't purchase herb at all but use edibles/pills in place of many of the OTC remedies we have today. This is an interesting point because up until now "strains" have all been about what is produced naturally. If a company grows and isolates every cannabinoid it opens up an entirely untapped psychedelic market for non-natural mixtures of each cannabinioid. There is thousands of different cannabinoids in each plant some of which exist in minuscule amounts compared to others. It is possible by isolating several of lesser known cannabinoids that appear in lower content you could create a mixture that has an entirely different and never before seen effects. A lot of the lower concentration cannabinoids may never actually get a chance to "work" on the body when ingested with others as the brains recepters may already be full of higher concentration cannabinoids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:This is an interesting point because up until now "strains" have all been about what is produced naturally. If a company grows and isolates every cannabinoid it opens up an entirely untapped psychedelic market for non-natural mixtures of each cannabinioid. That will definitely be something that will happen as large scale growing becomes more and more widespread and agricultural research on hemp and marijuana becomes less and less restrictive. Breeding for faster growth or better resistance to pests or relatively unfavorable conditions will definitely be at the forefront though. Also, on the subject of pollen, Bees. I could see a side business of at least smaller growers investing in bees to supplement income through "hemp honey" or whatever and helping pollination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Also, on the subject of pollen, Bees. I could see a side business of at least smaller growers investing in bees to supplement income through "hemp honey" or whatever and helping pollination. Bees don't pollinate marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
I think we've passed the tipping point regarding popular support of marijuana legalization. In the past it's been considered difficult for a politician to openly support legalization. We're entering into a phase where it's difficult for a politician to openly oppose legalization. Opposing legalization doesn't really rile up the party bases like some other issues while it reduces the support of libertarians and independents and motivates some voters to vote against you. Politicians are starting to distance themselves from marijuana prohibition because it can only hurt them. We're starting to see some signs of this in the DOJ's approach to state legalization, the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on marijuana legalization and McCain's remarks all within the last few weeks. I think we'll start seeing opportunistic mainstream candidates coming out in support of legalization within the next couple of election cycles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:I think we've passed the tipping point regarding popular support of marijuana legalization. In the past it's been considered difficult for a politician to openly support legalization. We're entering into a phase where it's difficult for a politician to openly oppose legalization. Opposing legalization doesn't really rile up the party bases like some other issues while it reduces the support of libertarians and independents and motivates some voters to vote against you. Politicians are starting to distance themselves from marijuana prohibition because it can only hurt them. We're starting to see some signs of this in the DOJ's approach to state legalization, the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on marijuana legalization and McCain's remarks all within the last few weeks. I think we'll start seeing opportunistic mainstream candidates coming out in support of legalization within the next couple of election cycles. To corroborate that, I finally saw the Sanjay Gupta documentary Weed on CNN yesterday. It's cautiously conservative, but IMO, it overwhelmingly makes the case for MMJ. And this is on a major cable news outlet that usually goes out of its way to not rock the boat. And you're right about the lack of real, vocal opposition. The only people that seems to care about keeping it illegal at this point are those in the "Drug War Industrial Complex" that directly profit off of the current status quo. The average Republican voter doesn't seem to be losing any sleep over it. The adversaries of legalization will fight it to the bloody end, but I truly think we've entered endgame at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 20:49
|
|
|
Hamsack posted:If we are speculating on what the future legal marijuana market will look like I think you might be underestimating the the impact that edibles are going to play. In the CO/CA MMJ market products like Cheeba Chews and Kiva/Blue Kudu Bars have quickly gained a reputation of being extremely reliable and effective medicine. What's more is that the companies that make them seem determined to increase the "respectability" of their brands; they are tested and labeled for THC content and feature well designed/attractive packaging. Kiva Bars come with a paper scale that tells you how to divide the bar into appropriate sized doses based on your need. Cheeba Chews has just created a new product that has a lower THC content and an elevated CBD content; providing less of a psychoactive effect but more body-wide pain relief (as with an indica). This. Anecdotally, in Arizona after the passage of the AZ Medical Marijuana Act production and distribution of edibles took right off. The best of them, even the gray market ones, are dosed exactly and labelled accordingly. The state regulators and prosecutors are very upset about this situation, mainly because they are almost all Republican apparatchiks. Don't misunderstand me, we have quite a few Republicans in the activist ranks here, but the Party has its party line. Being anti-pot is almost as popular here as being anti-Mexican in Republican quarters. People like these edibles for many reasons. One is dose repeatability. Another is that they are relatively discrete. No tell tale cloud of strongly scented smoke or need for elaborate paraphernalia means popularity. DrPlump posted:This is an interesting point because up until now "strains" have all been about what is produced naturally. If a company grows and isolates every cannabinoid it opens up an entirely untapped psychedelic market for non-natural mixtures of each cannabinioid. This is bullshit. There are only a handful of cannabinoids that occur in any appreciable quantity. Most of them are not psychedelic at all. In fact CBD (cannabidiol), the second most bountiful cannabinoid,has an attenuating effect on THC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Beaters posted:This. Anecdotally, in Arizona after the passage of the AZ Medical Marijuana Act production and distribution of edibles took right off. The best of them, even the gray market ones, are dosed exactly and labelled accordingly. The state regulators and prosecutors are very upset about this situation, mainly because they are almost all Republican apparatchiks. Don't misunderstand me, we have quite a few Republicans in the activist ranks here, but the Party has its party line. Being anti-pot is almost as popular here as being anti-Mexican in Republican quarters. Interesting to hear, even though it runs counter to my perceptions on a national level. What do you think the reason is? Is it due to a cult of personality based around Sheriff Joe? Is pot a sort of dog whistle for them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Beaters posted:This is bullshit. There are only a handful of cannabinoids that occur in any appreciable quantity. Most of them are not psychedelic at all. In fact CBD (cannabidiol), the second most bountiful cannabinoid,has an attenuating effect on THC. It does not attenuate the high it alters the high which is a subtle but key difference. I found a page that talks about the main compounds but mentions others and how they effect each other. http://www.lycaeum.org/~sky/data/grow/c2.html quote:Marijuana (plant material) is sometimes rated more potent that the content of delta-9 THC alone would suggest. It also elicits qualitatively different highs. The reasons for this have not been sorted out. Few clinical studies with known combinations of several cannabinoids have been undertaken with human subjects. This field is still in its infancy. So far, different highs and possibly higher potency seem to be due to the interaction of delta-9 THC and other cannabinoids (THCV,CBD,CBN, and possibly CBC). Except for THCV, in the pure form, these other cannabinoids do not have much psychoactivity. So there is 3-5 compounds that in their pure form have some effect on the body some of them minor even when tested in pure form. However it also mentions that not much study has been done on the "other compounds" found in marijuana. quote:The possibility that there are non-cannabinoids that are psychoactive or interacting with the cannabinoids has not been investigated in detail. Non-cannabinoids with biological activity have been isolated from the plants, but only in very small quantities (181). None are known to be psychotomimetic. However, they may contribute to the overall experience in non-mental ways, such as the stimulation of the appetite. It is hard to find a specific number of compounds online but another website has an estimate of >400 with >150 resealed in the smoke during pyrolysis. http://www.health.am/psy/more/marijuana_and_cannabis_compounds/ quote:Cannabis sativa contains >400 compounds in addition to the psychoactive substance, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Marijuana cigarettes are prepared from the leaves and flowering tops of the plant, and a typical marijuana cigarette contains 0.5 to 1 g of plant material. Although the usual THC concentration varies between 10 and 40 mg, concentrations >100 mg per cigarette have been detected. Hashish is prepared from concentrated resin of C. sativa and contains a THC concentration of between 8 to 12% percent by weight. “Hash oil,” a lipid-soluble plant extract, may contain a THC concentration of 25 to 60% percent and may be added to marijuana or hashish to enhance its THC concentration. Smoking is the most common mode of marijuana or hashish use. During pyrolysis, >150 compounds in addition to THC are released in the smoke. Although most of these compounds do not have psychoactive properties, they do have potential physiologic effects. The first link goes into a ton more details on the subject breaking the plants down into different types and mentioning a newly discovered variety that produces higher concentrations of propyl cannabinoids but has not been researched in much detail. It also has a lot of interesting information about the potency of different strains from different parts of the world. It will be interesting to see what happens once research is able to better map the exact effect of each compound and eventually remove everything unnecessary or with undesired effects.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:[...] As far as the effects of CBD go, please consult the resources at projectcbd.org rather than rely on a passage derived from some 1973 research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Brave New World posted:Interesting to hear, even though it runs counter to my perceptions on a national level. What do you think the reason is? Is it due to a cult of personality based around Sheriff Joe? Is pot a sort of dog whistle for them? Hard to say exactly, but I suspect much of the resistance here comes from religious quarters including but not limited to the Mormons. They don't even like coffee and they are quite influential here. Did you know they were behind some of the first anti-pot laws at the state level prior to the 1937 federal ban? Aside from the Sheriff Joe cultism, there does seem to be a lot of fellating of law enforcement generally here, too. As far as Sheriff Joke goes, he began as a DEA narc, and his prohibitionist attitude shows. Whatever the cause, the prosecutors have taken a hard line against medical cannabis, and prosecute people every time they get a chance. In the case of edibles they have recently taken the stance of asserting that infused products amount to production of hashish, which for some reason is treated differently than ordinary pot under AZ law. Personally I think the AZ Medical Marijuana Act supercedes the old definition for the purposes of medical cannabis, but some unfortunate SOB's attorney will have to argue that in court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Beaters posted:
Did you mean psychoactive? I don't remember cannabinoids being labeled psychedelics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Did you mean psychoactive? Some say yes, some say no, regarding THC anyhow. Psychedelic? Hallucinogen? Psychotomimetic? Entheogen? None of these? You be the judge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
There was an editorial in our local paper here the other day by our county's sheriff, full of law enforcement untruths and fearmongering (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/224151231.html) about why weed is the devil. I was pleasantly surprised to see that about 95% of the comments on it were overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. Then yesterday there was another editorial which broke down just exactly how our sheriff was full of poo poo (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/224491671.html). It seems the times, they are truly a-changin'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:There was an editorial in our local paper here the other day by our county's sheriff, full of law enforcement untruths and fearmongering (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/224151231.html) about why weed is the devil. I was pleasantly surprised to see that about 95% of the comments on it were overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. It's unfortunate that Governor Dayton has stated he won't support this year's proposed MMJ legislation unless law enforcement also supports it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:There was an editorial in our local paper here the other day by our county's sheriff, full of law enforcement untruths and fearmongering (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/224151231.html) about why weed is the devil. I was pleasantly surprised to see that about 95% of the comments on it were overwhelmingly in favor of legalization. I like that that response closes by pointing out that the Sheriff's Department is reliant on marijuana prohibition for funding. Let's hope he doesn't get his house confiscated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
snooman posted:It's unfortunate that Governor Dayton has stated he won't support this year's proposed MMJ legislation unless law enforcement also supports it. It's unfortunate that in the last race for governor, all three (repub, dem and independent) candidates expressed this sentiment. Especially as back when Pawlenty was governor we had a bipartisan bill to set up mmj that passed both the house and the senate only to be vetoed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:It's unfortunate that in the last race for governor, all three (repub, dem and independent) candidates expressed this sentiment. Especially as back when Pawlenty was governor we had a bipartisan bill to set up mmj that passed both the house and the senate only to be vetoed. His presidential ambition (and resulting strictures from the Republican party) probably got in the way of that, although he still maintained his 'compassion' for the terminally ill people who would have been the only beneficiaries of that bill. Dayton simply seems to be operating under a 'Drugs are bad, mmkay?" mentality, with no consideration of reality. Mark Dayton posted:I don't think we need another drug operating in our society. That directly contradicts that stats law enforcement just posted in the Star Tribune. Criminals use marijuana; if you use marijuana, you're a criminal! In my opinion he's painting MN law enforcement as the arbiter of What is Right and Proper for Minnesota™ simply to avoid making a decision of his own and risking his reelection chances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Absolutely. To be fair, he has had a bunch of trouble with alcohol in the past, so I think part of his thought process is "Well, I can't handle drinking, so clearly nobody else could handle weed." And then he gets to take a nice all expenses paid fishing trip with the policemen's union.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2013 13:13
|
|
|
So California passed a bill that would allow industrial hemp farming once the federal government gives the green light. It seems like something of a non-event, but I guess it's a step forward. http://www.sacbee.com/2013/09/28/5777538/governor-brown-signs-california.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
quote:Twenty-one retail marijuana outlets likely won’t be enough to meet Seattle’s demand for now-legal, taxed, and regulated recreational marijuana, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes says in a letter to the Washington State Liquor Control Board. http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/10/04/holmes-warns-not-enough-retail-pot-shops/ Remember WA State paid over $800 000 to a consulting company called BOTEC (lead by former prohibitionist Mark Kleiman) to tell them how many cannabis shops there ought to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Remember WA State paid over $800 000 to a consulting company called BOTEC (lead by former prohibitionist Mark Kleiman) to tell them how many cannabis shops there ought to be. Not only that, but someone did the math in regards to the max annual amount of cannabis that can be produced, and it came out to less than an eighth per adult in WA. I smoke that much on a week; there's no way that's going to be enough to meet demand. Edit: info on cap - http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/04/pot-production-capped-at-14-million-ounces Lacrosse fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Oct 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:Not only that, but someone did the math in regards to the max annual amount of cannabis that can be produced, and it came out to less than an eighth per adult in WA. I smoke that much on a week; there's no way that's going to be enough to meet demand. For what it's worth, the LCB is only expecting to capture 25% of the total market in the first year, and that many consumers will continue to be served by medical and black markets. They want to move gradually towards taking over the market and not biting off more than they can chew in the first year. So I'd expect that the max total production cap will go up as time goes on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see which method works better; my money is on CO. Of course, they seem to have a much larger mmj industry going so they have a bit more of a handle on the market already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
First hemp harvest in the US in 60 years happened over the weekend in Springfield, CO. The yield was small as seed is hard to get in the US, half of what he bought was destroyed by customs. Next year should be many times better since this harvest was mostly to save seeds to replant, plus there is still plenty out there growing. Funny, if you drove 50 or so miles in 3 directions you'd go into 3 other states where just having this would be a felony, let alone growing it on an industrial scale. Video with interviews: http://www.thv11.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=2725712648001 http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2013/10/hemp_harvest_colorado.php quote:America's first (known) hemp harvest in more than fifty years began this month in southeastern Colorado. This past spring, following last year's passage of Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of marijuana for adults and paved the way for industrial hemp production, farmer Ryan Loflin planted 55 acres of marijuana's sober sister. Last week, hemp advocates from across the country came to watch as Loflin and others harvested the first plants by hand.   Aerial video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FumBTUe8Qcs e: added vid link Vitamin J fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
That's great news, exciting times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Secession:quote:CHEYENNE WELLS, Colo. — The Old West has decided it is fed up with the New West. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/us/fed-up-on-the-prairie-and-voting-on-seceding-from-colorado.html?hp&_r=1&
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Goddamn liberals and their big nanny government bullshit, just leave us rugged independent folks alone with our ~$200M in farm subsidies per year. http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=08000&progcode=total&yr=2012
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
KingEup posted:Secession: Fun fact: States that allowed medical marijuana pre Raich: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2013 22:42
|
|
