|
Freakazoid_ posted:Let's say I want a job growing weed in washington state. Is it still young enough that someone with a little gardening experience can get in, or is it like any other job full of more qualified people than me? I can't speak for Washington and I know 0 about the weed scene, but in Colorado you hear a lot of stories about how a ton people came out here to work weed jobs and found a totally crowded market.
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I can't speak for Washington and I know 0 about the weed scene, but in Colorado you hear a lot of stories about how a ton people came out here to work weed jobs and found a totally crowded market. It makes sense, since there are only so many dispensaries in a state (despite them popping up like mushrooms after an Oregon rain here in, well, Oregon), and there's a limit to how much product any dispensary can really buy and hold at one time (due to demand levels and policy and so on). So unless Freakazoid_ can either grow a very appealing strain, or front the capital to farm and sell their product exclusively (vertical integration or whatever), the hurdle's probably pretty high. It can't be forgotten that states with medical marijuana probably had all manner of suppliers for that purpose already, long before legalization for recreational use, so it was a matter of those pre-existing suppliers scaling up production once legalization kicked in, anyway. Rather than being a gold rush (or green rush?) scenario, I suspect a lot of the market groundwork was already in place and the big money expansion was in opening dispensaries rather than being a grower. But more detailed info and insight would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
I think there would be better money selling specialized supplies to potential growers, or essentially picks and shovels to the 49ers.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Does anyone know if those rumors/legends that all of the tobacco companies own trademarks on a number of weed names are true? For example, Acapulco Gold or like Marlboro Greens, etc - I feel like those were big rumors in the 90's but hadn't heard any updates since or any real sources other than "Of COURSE they do why wouldn't they?!"
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
https://news.vice.com/article/a-patent-for-cannabis-plants-is-already-a-reality-and-more-are-expected-to-follow Phillip Morris says they're not interested.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
What is the degree of genetic diversity in the more widespread strains anyways?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Does anyone know if those rumors/legends that all of the tobacco companies own trademarks on a number of weed names are true? http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:8yrw34.2.1
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:Does anyone know if those rumors/legends that all of the tobacco companies own trademarks on a number of weed names are true? They don't need to hold trademarks on ones that involve a major brand they already own, e.g. if someone tried to start selling their own "Marlboro Greens", the Marlboro brand owner can have that slapped down easily. Secondly they couldn't, with very few exceptions, hold a trademark on a product name, if they never ever used it nor had plans to use it for decades on end.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Yeah "Marlboro greens" has got to be up there with "white Bics are bad luck" in the book of things-to-talk-about-when you're stoned.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:What is the degree of genetic diversity in the more widespread strains anyways? It's totally unregulated and always changing, so who knows. I don't trust anything anyone says and naming is more of a novelty anyway. The only way to really tell it to look at the plant itself and even then there's no way to be exact. SedanChair posted:Yeah "Marlboro greens" has got to be up there with "white Bics are bad luck" in the book of things-to-talk-about-when you're stoned. I picked this up a decade ago, avoiding white lighters is one of the very few superstitious things I do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
It's why I only buy white lighters. I don't give a gently caress about your superstitions, but it's always easy to find mine and make sure it stays with me.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's why I only buy white lighters. I don't give a gently caress about your superstitions, but it's always easy to find mine and make sure it stays with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuCGiV-EVjA
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:https://news.vice.com/article/a-patent-for-cannabis-plants-is-already-a-reality-and-more-are-expected-to-follow Why would they be? They're a tobacco company.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
any bic lighter with a fancy design on it is a white bic with a plastic label put on it, have fun with your moron curse
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:any bic lighter with a fancy design on it is a white bic with a plastic label put on it, have fun with your moron curse
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:any bic lighter with a fancy design on it is a white bic with a plastic label put on it, have fun with your moron curse I just bought this one that has this strange green plaid design and it's blue underneath which is very weird. Don't defend white lighters.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Don't defend white lighters. I've never heard of this anti-white-lighters thing in my life. What does it come from?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Bunch of celebs that died supposedly had white lighters on their person.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I've never heard of this anti-white-lighters thing in my life. What does it come from? Nothing and nowhere. These kinds of folk superstitions evolve and disperse without any rhyme or reason.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:What is the degree of genetic diversity in the more widespread strains anyways? Check out this site. It's a hub site for dispensaries and strain details.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I've never heard of this anti-white-lighters thing in my life. What does it come from? It's a stupid superstition, I wish I didn't have in my brain. But I do, and I believe in it as much as I do the germ theory of disease. People are idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Does anyone know what's going with DC? It's legal to possess and grow, but you can't legally sell, which means it's kind of hard to buy at a reasonable price. Some DC budget autonomy rule (which was passed by referendum in 2013 and upheld recently by a judge) will allow DC to control it's local budget without congressional meddling, meaning that (I think) the congressional budget rider that republicans attached to the national budget to prevent legal sales of marijuana in DC can now be sidestepped starting the next fiscal year (which begins in October.) The city counsel and mayor recently voted to ban social clubs that would be established for the sole purpose of marijuana consumption, so I'm not sure if the DC government will be eager about establishing legal venues for sales and will just be content with the current limbo for years on end. :/ Legal sales in DC would be huge though, not just for DC but for that entire metropolitan region and any cannabis store in DC stands to make decent money.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:A very good article about over-regulation as a tactic of crypto-prohibitionists. Ah good ol' incrementalism. Democrats use it with guns, Republicans' use it with abortion, but really it comes down to idiots wanting to ban things they don't like, without saying they want to ban them.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Does anyone know what's going with DC? It's legal to possess and grow, but you can't legally sell, which means it's kind of hard to buy at a reasonable price. As I understand, it's not quite that simple. DC is basically considering saying "well, Congress, you have to approve our budgets but... what if we just fuckin' did it anyway because gently caress you?" in an attempt to call Congress' bluff/ show that the GOP doesn't want to expend the resources they have on a fight they really don't care THAT much about considering all of the poo poo the GOP has going on right now. Aside, in DC, there are a number of businesses springing up that are essentially following the letter of the law in order to sell weed. For example, a company delivers juice here in DC, by donation only. $45 gets you a ~16 oz bottle of like Ginger Honey Limeade, and because of your generous donation, they'll also give you an eighth alongside the delivery. So far, DC hasn't really put any resources into stopping them, so they're beginning to be more and more prevalent.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:As I understand, it's not quite that simple. DC is basically considering saying "well, Congress, you have to approve our budgets but... what if we just fuckin' did it anyway because gently caress you?" in an attempt to call Congress' bluff/ show that the GOP doesn't want to expend the resources they have on a fight they really don't care THAT much about considering all of the poo poo the GOP has going on right now. Ginger honey limeade sounds tasty.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
"Funding to oppose California marijuana legalization this year has grown from a paltry $13,000 to over $60,000 thanks to a major group — the state’s prison guards." Makes sense, I guess... http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2016/05/19/prison-guards-donate-to-keep-pot-illegal-in-california/
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:"Funding to oppose California marijuana legalization this year has grown from a paltry $13,000 to over $60,000 thanks to a major group — the state’s prison guards." They lost everyone decent keeping them company at work?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Invisble Manuel posted:"Funding to oppose California marijuana legalization this year has grown from a paltry $13,000 to over $60,000 thanks to a major group — the state’s prison guards." If the pro-cannabis legalization people had better messaging this could be an effective propaganda coup.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
60 grand still seems pretty paltry.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
Another major article throwing shade at legalization, this time from the perspective of "concern for the poor." http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...negative-213906 Here's the other one, this time from the perspective of "legalization didn't change disparate arrests along color lines." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/legal-pot-and-the-black-market/481506/ I know I'm not quoting passages, but these links are just for the benefit of people interested in the spectacle of the debate over cannabis legalization. objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 08:07 on May 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Republican controlled Michigan state legislature doing their best to keep marijuana bill and anti-fracking measurement off of the November ballot. Let's serve the people by changing the rules of the game midway through in hopes that the people themselves won't be able to decide the outcome. http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/05/houses_passes_180-day_signatur.html
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Here's the other one, this time from the perspective of "legalization didn't change disparate arrests along color lines." The data I saw earlier about what people are arrested for confirms this. The issue was never "Black people get arrested/convicted disproportionately for marijuana", it was "Black people get arrested/convicted disproportionately for everything, and marijuana is only one example".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Another major article throwing shade at legalization, this time from the perspective of "concern for the poor." No. Marijuana legalization will not solve systemic racism. And yes marijuana is now a force of gentrification. Gentrification and loss of jobs are not however related to marijuana in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:No. Marijuana legalization will not solve systemic racism. I agree, but over-emphasis of arguments like "there will be reduction in disparate arrests rates" is the result of cannabis legalization proponents' assiduous avoidance of defending the recreational use of cannabis as a benign or good thing and therefore having to rely primarily on arguing for the other benefits of legalization, which often just plays into the hands of prohibitionists -- eg, Kevin Sabet this week bragging (with charts) that tax revenue in Washington State for marijuana was a lot less than promised by the pro-legalization crowd.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:I agree, but over-emphasis of arguments like "there will be reduction in disparate arrests rates" is the result of cannabis legalization proponents' assiduous avoidance of defending the recreational use of cannabis as a benign or good thing and therefore having to rely primarily on arguing for the other benefits of legalization, which often just plays into the hands of prohibitionists -- eg, Kevin Sabet this week bragging (with charts) that tax revenue in Washington State for marijuana was a lot less than promised by the pro-legalization crowd. Who ever said there would be an impact of the proportional disparity on arrest rates? The claim was always simply that there would be fewer racially disparate arrests because there would be an absolute reduction in unnecessary arrests. The data since legalization has supported that, and even the article says as much.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Who ever said there would be an impact of the proportional disparity on arrest rates? A lot of people over the past decades, including the dude who came to me to sign the petition stuff for the Massachusetts weed initiative scheduled for later this year (i signed of course).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:I agree, but over-emphasis of arguments like "there will be reduction in disparate arrests rates" is the result of cannabis legalization proponents' assiduous avoidance of defending the recreational use of cannabis as a benign or good thing and therefore having to rely primarily on arguing for the other benefits of legalization, which often just plays into the hands of prohibitionists -- eg, Kevin Sabet this week bragging (with charts) that tax revenue in Washington State for marijuana was a lot less than promised by the pro-legalization crowd. It's important to keep arguments against prohibition clear, succinct and pragmatic. Most people don't care enough to take the time to understand nuanced arguments and are naturally skeptical of grandiose claims. Millions of Americans consume cannabis, a fact that underscores both the failure of cannabis prohibition and the need to address problems associtated with the immense black market required to supply those millions of cannabis users. The argument makes itself, you don't need to go make poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Who ever said there would be an impact of the proportional disparity on arrest rates? The claim was always simply that there would be fewer racially disparate arrests because there would be an absolute reduction in unnecessary arrests. The data since legalization has supported that, and even the article says as much. I can guarantee that was not the claim. Anti-War on Drugs rhetoric for a while has been "The War on Drugs existed to lock up black people". Now it turns out, hey, the entire criminal justice system exists to lock up black people. War on Drugs stuff (proportionally) actually isn't that bad. You would get a lot more people out if you focused on (eg) Robbery, since that actually does lock up a significantly higher proportion of black people than white (I think it was 18% of black people in jail are there for robbery versus 10% of whites).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I can guarantee that was not the claim. Anti-War on Drugs rhetoric for a while has been "The War on Drugs existed to lock up black people". Now it turns out, hey, the entire criminal justice system exists to lock up black people. War on Drugs stuff (proportionally) actually isn't that bad. Yes, the entire criminal justice system exists to lock up black people, and the war on drugs is a significant subset of that. Any drawdown in the war on drugs reduces the harm in an absolute sense. Data from Colorado has proven that out so far, what is the complaint exactly? Can you cite anyone actually claiming that ending the war on drugs would magically fix the rest of the justice system?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:the war on drugs is a significant subset of that. The data doesn't actually support this. If you're going from the assumption that "even just a simple conviction ruins people's lives", the War on Drugs didn't do much. Across the board, drug possession is ~3% of people's worst crime convicted for. computer parts fucked around with this message at 19:21 on May 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2016 19:17
|
|