This is why you want to legalize instead of legislating marijuana....

[phill4paul]

Oakland pot-growing plan worries small bud tenders

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100718/ap_on_re_us/us_pot_city_cultivation;


OAKLAND, Calif. – After weathering the fear of federal prosecution and competition from drug cartels, California's medical marijuana growers see a new threat to their tenuous existence: the "Wal-Marting" of weed.

The Oakland City Council on Tuesday will look at licensing four production plants where pot would be grown, packaged and processed into items ranging from baked goods to body oil. Winning applicants would have to pay $211,000 in annual permit fees, carry $2 million worth of liability insurance and be prepared to devote up to 8 percent of gross sales to taxes.

But, I guess you take what you can get.

[coastie]

2 million in liability insurance?:confused::eek:

For what? Oh, that's right-so only rich, powerfully connected people can do it.

Well, since my state would be dead last in "legalizing", I got a long time to wait before I can grow it.:mad:

[specsaregood]

2 million in liability insurance?:confused::eek:
For what? Oh, that's right-so only rich, powerfully connected people can do it.


That really isn't all that much for a company to carry. It doesn't mean they have to put up a 2million bond.

I don't see any of this "walmarting of pot" becoming an issue until it is legal at the federal level. The big boys are not gonna risk everything they have by violating a federal law.

[Jordan]

2 million in liability insurance?:confused::eek:

For what? Oh, that's right-so only rich, powerfully connected people can do it.



For the fire hazard that is a grow operation.

That $2 million in liability insuarance isn't shit compared to the annual permit fees. They'd probably only pay a few thousand dollars at most per year for $2 million in coverage.

[RideTheDirt]

NSFW
YouTube - Doug Stanhope - Medicinal Marijuana (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd5_nTwLVEg)
this is why

[specsaregood]

For the fire hazard that is a grow operation.

That $2 million in liability insuarance isn't shit compared to the annual permit fees. They'd probably only pay a few thousand dollars at most per year for $2 million in coverage.

Besides the fire hazard, one has to wonder if they would need to carry liabilty insurance to cover the possibility of employees getting shot due to a federal drug raid?

[coastie]

For the fire hazard that is a grow operation.

That $2 million in liability insuarance isn't shit compared to the annual permit fees. They'd probably only pay a few thousand dollars at most per year for $2 million in coverage.


One would assume that they would need permits and inspections. It's not any more of a hazard than any other building with a lot of electricity.

[Jordan]

Besides the fire hazard, one has to wonder if they would need to carry liabilty insurance to cover the possibility of employees getting shot due to a federal drug raid?

Well, my thinking was to protect against the 390534 lawsuits you might face if someone gets in an accident after smoking the marijuana you grew. Even the winners are losers in court.

Anyway, the point remains that $2 million in liability insurance is practically nothing. I'd bet most small businesses with a retail store front has that much insurance.

[Jordan]

One would assume that they would need permits and inspections. It's not any more of a hazard than any other building with a lot of electricity.

Most buildings aren't outfitted with as much lighting as a grow operation. My bedroom has a single 60watt lightbulb to light probably 150 sq ft of space. A grow operation of that size would have probably 2000 watts of power.


My point is that we need to pick our battles. Any responsible business owner is going to have that much, if not more, in liability insurance at fraction of the cost of the require annual permit.

[specsaregood]

Well, my thinking was to protect against the 390534 lawsuits you might face if someone gets in an accident after smoking the marijuana you grew. Even the winners are losers in court.

Anyway, the point remains that $2 million in liability insurance is practically nothing. I'd bet most small businesses with a retail store front has that much insurance.
True enough. Although I think their rates will probably be a bit higher just from the "outlaw" nature of it and unforseen issues, at least in the short term. Their adjusters have no real data to base their initial rates upon.

[phill4paul]

I look at it the same way as big Agri-business vs. small farmers.

For those that don't think the big corps. are gonna jump all over this I tend to disagree. It would be nothing for a big business to finance a start up and have the political associations to insure its success.
The resources would be nothing to fund this and be considered R&D. They would get in and control the industry from the ground floor.

[Jordan]

True enough. Although I think their rates will probably be a bit higher just from the "outlaw" nature of it and unforseen issues, at least in the short term. Their adjusters have no real data to base their initial rates upon.

Theft is probably a huge risk. :o

I was looking at opening a fireworks store, and for $1 million of liability it was going to cost about $950 for a full year. Both a growing op and a fireworks store have to have roughly the same amount of risk.

Weed:
Fire
Theft
Medical Claims/Property Damage

Fireworks:
Fire
Theft
Medical Claims/Property Damage

[phill4paul]

(...marijuana advocates) They complain that industrial-scale gardens would harm the environment, reduce quality and leave consumers with fewer strains from which to choose.



The proposal's supporters, including entrepreneurs more disposed to neckties than tie-dye, counter that unregulated growers working in covert warehouses or houses are tax scofflaws more likely to wreak environmental havoc, be motivated purely by profit and produce inferior products..


Both the Pro-legislation and Anti-legislation levy the same charges against each other. Both sides claim that the other side will harm the environment and reduce quality. Funny, how the supports add in that individual growers are the ones motivated by profit. and are tax scofflaws. :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Well, my thinking was to protect against the 390534 lawsuits you might face if someone gets in an accident after smoking the marijuana you grew. Even the winners are losers in court.

Anyway, the point remains that $2 million in liability insurance is practically nothing. I'd bet most small businesses with a retail store front has that much insurance.

Which leads to more questions. How long before the THC content becomes regulated? If you are going to have liability insurance than I'm sure your gonna have to commission a study that will recommend only a certain THC limit.
Much like the varying alcohol content of beer, wine, and "hard liquor."

[specsaregood]

//

[phill4paul]

Is there similar laws on nicotine content in cigarettes? I wasn't aware that there was. And as you probably are aware, THC is just one factor in how it affects you, there are hundreds of cannabinoids.

Nicotine is not treated like alcohol with regards to motor vehicle operation. So that comparison is kinda apples and oranges.
That is the point I was trying to make with regards to content vs. liability. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
And yes I am aware. Again, I guess I didn't make my case.
I was thinking more along the lines of only allowing mandated strains. Not to strong. Not to weak. Just enough and no more. Of course I'm sure Monsanto would love to control the regulated seed. Engineered, of course, to have sterile or no seed.

[specsaregood]

//

[coastie]

Perhaps it should. :) It does affect your reflexes. Hell, dropping a burning cigarette can induce erratic driving.


Ok, gotcha.


Worth noting, some strains have already been developed that cannot be cloned or revegged. They die after a set time period, sorta similar. I agree, monsanto would love that.

Interesting. Which strains are these? Not that I dont believe you, I've just never heard of this and find it intriguing. Some strains are notoriously difficult to reveg and clone by their nature. It's an annual, after all.

[johngr]

True enough. Although I think their rates will probably be a bit higher just from the "outlaw" nature of it and unforseen issues, at least in the short term. Their adjusters have no real data to base their initial rates upon.

Adjusters investigate and otherwise handle claims. You're thinking of actuaries or actuarial analysts.

[specsaregood]

Interesting. Which strains are these? Not that I dont believe you, I've just never heard of this and find it intriguing.

They are the "autoflower" strains. They start flowering at a set period no matter what. They ignore light levels (ie: you can't keep lights on 24hrs to keep them in veg mode). They grow, veg, flower, die. You can't reveg them or clone them. Because the clones are the same age as the mother and they die at the same time. So either you have to make sure to do a "seed run" or you keep going back to the seed maker to buy more each harvest.

Started out with the lowryder brand, Then others took those and crossed them with other existing strains, and breeding them so to keep the autoflower trait, but other traits from the other strains. They are much quicker, and don't grow nearly as tall. But they can produce, take up less space and are of acceptable quality -- but by no means the "best" yet.

IIRC, the trait was cross-bred from a hemp plant strain from northern parts of russia where they get 24hours of sun at parts of the year.

Edit: here ya go: ruderalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Description


var. spontanea (= C. ruderalis), which is commonly described as "auto-flowering" and may be day-neutral.

[specsaregood]

Adjusters investigate and otherwise handle claims. You're thinking of actuaries or actuarial analysts.

Of course you are correct. Thanks.

[coastie]

They are the "autoflower" strains. They start flowering at a set period no matter what. They ignore light levels (ie: you can't keep lights on 24hrs to keep them in veg mode). They grow, veg, flower, die. You can't reveg them or clone them. Because the clones are the same age as the mother and they die at the same time. So either you have to make sure to do a "seed run" or you keep going back to the seed maker to buy more each harvest.

Started out with the lowryder brand, Then others took those and crossed them with other existing strains, and breeding them so to keep the autoflower trait, but other traits from the other strains. They are much quicker, and don't grow nearly as tall. But they can produce, take up less space and are of acceptable quality -- but by no means the "best" yet.

IIRC, the trait was cross-bred from a hemp plant strain from northern parts of russia where they get 24hours of sun at parts of the year.

Edit: here ya go: ruderalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Description

ahh, yes, I'm familiar with the ruderalis strains. Thing is, with their auto-flowering traits, there really is no need to clone or reveg them, as those are ways to offset the normal vegetation period required before flowering, cutting 4-5 weeks(dependant on strain) out of the cycle down to a 2 week(or less) time period.

[specsaregood]

ahh, yes, I'm familiar with the ruderalis strains. Thing is, with their auto-flowering traits, there really is no need to clone or reveg them, as those are ways to offset the normal vegetation period required before flowering, cutting 4-5 weeks(dependant on strain) out of the cycle down to a 2 week(or less) time period.

Well I didn't say you couldn't tweak with your growing methods. Just that they have a set lifecycle and that you can't clone or reveg them.

But I would disagree with the "no need to clone or reveg". As the main reason to do those 2 things are to keep from having to start from seed every cycle and having to waste time growing/weeding out males. :) The vegetation period is rather minor in comparison, nobody wants to waste time growing males if they don't have to (and yes this ignores the "feminized" seeds ability").

As far as the topic at hand and why I mentioned it: splice in Monsanto's "terminator gene" and you would get their dream strain. Something that can't be cloned, can't be revegged and only produces sterile seeds and grows quickly to harvest. Commercial growers and Monsanto would love it. Quick grow time, no seed harvesting, they just have to keep going back to Monsanto for new seed every single time. They are already 2/3rds of the way there. :(

[libertybrewcity]

They are the "autoflower" strains. They start flowering at a set period no matter what. They ignore light levels (ie: you can't keep lights on 24hrs to keep them in veg mode). They grow, veg, flower, die. You can't reveg them or clone them. Because the clones are the same age as the mother and they die at the same time. So either you have to make sure to do a "seed run" or you keep going back to the seed maker to buy more each harvest.

Started out with the lowryder brand, Then others took those and crossed them with other existing strains, and breeding them so to keep the autoflower trait, but other traits from the other strains. They are much quicker, and don't grow nearly as tall. But they can produce, take up less space and are of acceptable quality -- but by no means the "best" yet.

IIRC, the trait was cross-bred from a hemp plant strain from northern parts of russia where they get 24hours of sun at parts of the year.

Edit: here ya go: ruderalis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis#Description

That trait is only found in the Ruderalis strand of cannabis. (sativa, indica, and ruderalis) Ruderalis has little if any THC, usually less than 1%. It can be crossed with other species such as more potent indica and sativa, but the hybrid will still have lower potency than other strands of pure sativa and indica.

NEVERMIND, looks like this was covered already...

[phill4paul]

As far as the topic at hand and why I mentioned it: splice in Monsanto's "terminator gene" and you would get their dream strain. Something that can't be cloned, can't be revegged and only produces sterile seeds and grows quickly to harvest. Commercial growers and Monsanto would love it. Quick grow time, no seed harvesting, they just have to keep going back to Monsanto for new seed every single time. They are already 2/3rds of the way there. :(

Exactly. If medical marijuana gains too much ground you will NEVER see legalization in our lifetime.
The major players will dominate the market. Agri-business will have a stake in a heavily regulated industry. Government will get its portion in taxation and in control of individual liberty.
They will play that it is an excellent trade off. Hell, they'll set themselves up as genuine humanitarians all the while profiting from a heavily regulated industry.
This "experiment" in California has gone beyond the "grassroots" level. If it ever was controlled by that in the first place.
They'll "give" you something that should be a natural right to begin with. They will "burn the candle" and tax it at both business and consumer ends.
Then there is the whole medical/health industry end of it. Who gets it who doesn't?

Legalize don't legislate.

I don't see how anyone can see this as a good thing. As far as I'm concerned it is all or nothing.

They feel like they control it. It is time they understand they don't and half measures are as good as a fail. IMHO.

[coastie]

Well I didn't say you couldn't tweak with your growing methods. Just that they have a set lifecycle and that you can't clone or reveg them.

But I would disagree with the "no need to clone or reveg". As the main reason to do those 2 things are to keep from having to start from seed every cycle and having to waste time growing/weeding out males. :) The vegetation period is rather minor in comparison, nobody wants to waste time growing males if they don't have to (and yes this ignores the "feminized" seeds ability").

As far as the topic at hand and why I mentioned it: splice in Monsanto's "terminator gene" and you would get their dream strain. Something that can't be cloned, can't be revegged and only produces sterile seeds and grows quickly to harvest. Commercial growers and Monsanto would love it. Quick grow time, no seed harvesting, they just have to keep going back to Monsanto for new seed every single time. They are already 2/3rds of the way there. :(


Correct. We're saying the same thing...:D

And, BTW.... FUCK Monsanto:mad:

The "community" has nothing to fear from them...there are probably literally millions of people with seeds out there;):cool:

[Fredom101]

I'm starting to become against the majority of people who want to legalize weed.
Most of them have no clue.
They will say "We need to legalize MJ and TAX it!! It will save California!"
No much nonsense in that thought process. We definitely need it to be legal, of course, but letting the gov't regulate it is a horrible idea, and the only thing that will "save California" is if we get rid of our idiocracy state government!

[phill4paul]

I'm starting to become against the majority of people who want to legalize weed.
Most of them have no clue.
They will say "We need to legalize MJ and TAX it!! It will save California!"
No much nonsense in that thought process. We definitely need it to be legal, of course, but letting the gov't regulate it is a horrible idea, and the only thing that will "save California" is if we get rid of our idiocracy state government!

Yep. . Those that see this as progress and a stepping stone are not looking at it from the perspective of the end run.
The end run being complete government control.

You don't gain freedom and liberty through half measures. You only reinforce the notion that government is benevolent and has your best interest in mind without regard to the belief that each man is his own sovereign.

[parocks]

A heck of a lot more than 2000 watts. Millions of watts maybe? At least 100K watts.



Most buildings aren't outfitted with as much lighting as a grow operation. My bedroom has a single 60watt lightbulb to light probably 150 sq ft of space. A grow operation of that size would have probably 2000 watts of power.


My point is that we need to pick our battles. Any responsible business owner is going to have that much, if not more, in liability insurance at fraction of the cost of the require annual permit.

[parocks]

There most certainly is huge money to be made here. I don't like that the money is going toward providing generic pot to lots of different dispensaries or stores.

That doesn't really benefit California or Californians that much. It's sorta a zero sum game.

I think that someone with big money should open up a huge marijuana superstore in the Bay area and/or LA. If it's legal to do so, every legal grower would have his or her wares sold at the superstore. Tourists would flock to that awesome superstore. It would be awfully dull to have the same pot everywhere you go.

If dispensaries carried boring generic pot and something interesting, then it would be better.

Of course, Yes on 19.


I look at it the same way as big Agri-business vs. small farmers.

For those that don't think the big corps. are gonna jump all over this I tend to disagree. It would be nothing for a big business to finance a start up and have the political associations to insure its success.
The resources would be nothing to fund this and be considered R&D. They would get in and control the industry from the ground floor.

[phill4paul]

Why is everyone hung up on wattage? Damn. There is such a thing as sunlight. Or should everything be hydroponic soylent green?

[phill4paul]

I think that someone with big money should open up a huge marijuana superstore in the Bay area and/or LA.

I'd rather a local farmers market.

Because it takes the "crime" out of criminalization.

[parocks]

Prop 19 doesn't TAX marijuana. It allows every Californian 21 and over the ability to grow 25 sq ft of pot. And it allows them to keep all the pot they grew in the place that they grew it. That's much much more than an ounce. It allows everyone over 21 the ability to carry around an ounce or less.

It also give the locality the ability to allow sales. And it leaves the details up to the locality. Yes, there can be local regulations, yes, there can be local taxes. But there might not be stores at all in many localities. But Prop 19 allows Californians to grow 25 sq ft - that's not dependent on the locality.

Prop 19 does not effect Prop 215.

This is a really good law.


I'm starting to become against the majority of people who want to legalize weed.
Most of them have no clue.
They will say "We need to legalize MJ and TAX it!! It will save California!"
No much nonsense in that thought process. We definitely need it to be legal, of course, but letting the gov't regulate it is a horrible idea, and the only thing that will "save California" is if we get rid of our idiocracy state government!

[parocks]

I'd rather a local farmers market.

Because it takes the "crime" out of criminalization.


I'm not against that. Hopefully there can be those who are able to comply with whatever regulations are out there.

If I was to guess, the pot growing areas of California, Humbolt(sp?) county maybe, would have excellent pro grower laws. Humbolt would probably tailor their laws to bring in growers, bring in the marijuana industry, keep the existing growers happy.

The marijuana superstore wouldn't likely be in Humbolt county. It's just more reasonable to assume that it would be located close to a transportation hub - near a major international airport. Drug tourism would be a huge benefit to California.

[eOs]

This is a test on an android emulator.

[phill4paul]

Prop 19 doesn't TAX marijuana. It allows every Californian 21 and over the ability to grow 25 sq ft of pot. And it allows them to keep all the pot they grew in the place that they grew it. That's much much more than an ounce. It allows everyone over 21 the ability to carry around an ounce or less.

It also give the locality the ability to allow sales. And it leaves the details up to the locality. Yes, there can be local regulations, yes, there can be local taxes. But there might not be stores at all in many localities. But Prop 19 allows Californians to grow 25 sq ft - that's not dependent on the locality.

Prop 19 does not effect Prop 215.

This is a really good law.

215 gives "patients" the ability to grow.

Who determines if your medically qualified to smoke?

If you decide to become "medically" qualified to smoke pot do you thereby give up your rights to the second amendment?

If your not now how long do you think the government will take before they make the connection.

[parocks]

Why is everyone hung up on wattage? Damn. There is such a thing as sunlight. Or should everything be hydroponic soylent green?

The Oakland grows are going to be indoor, so that's why wattage is relevant.

Also, there are certain tricks that growers use these days involving controlling when a plant gets light. It's easier to control when a plant gets light indoors than outdoors.

Sunlight is better though. If I was to guess, I'd say that over time a system might develop where sunlight would be used to supplement the artificial light. A greenhouse with a retractable roof perhaps?

[parocks]

Prop 19 allows everyone 21+ the ability to grow. Not just patients. I don't live in California, and I don't think I'd want to get a card, assuming that information is given to the Government. Prop 19 would not make anyone talk to anyone about their grow. People would just grow it. It'd be legal.

It's a pretty darn good law, and I haven't really heard anything against it from the liberty minded.

Now, people who are making good money the way things are now don't necessarily want to change things, but that's different.


215 gives "patients" the ability to grow.

Who determines if your medically qualified to smoke?

If you decide to become "medically" qualified to smoke pot do you thereby give up your rights to the second amendment?

If your not now how long do you think the government will take before they make the connection.

[phill4paul]

I'm not against that. Hopefully there can be those who are able to comply with whatever regulations are out there.

If I was to guess, the pot growing areas of California, Humbolt(sp?) county maybe, would have excellent pro grower laws. Humbolt would probably tailor their laws to bring in growers, bring in the marijuana industry, keep the existing growers happy.

The marijuana superstore wouldn't likely be in Humbolt county. It's just more reasonable to assume that it would be located close to a transportation hub - near a major international airport. Drug tourism would be a huge benefit to California.


:(

Anyone should be able to grow it. Anyone should be able to grow it and sell it or trade it without government intervention.

Conventional wisdom: The vegetable garden;

I have a garden (not this year, but in years past) and grow some 'maters, peppers,beans,squash (hate it, even fried) and corn.

My neighbor comes over and grabs a basket of everything. He says.."How much?" I say... "Let me borrow your tractor and tiller in the fall so I can plant more next year."

How much tax do we owe?

If pot was decriminalized then everyone could grow it. The market would go to individuals that grew and distributed within a local radius. Local growers would compete, thus raising the quality of the product.

Since everyone could grow it prices would drop making it un-productive to large crime syndicates.

The federal government is asking for a trade off.

They will legalize it for humane purposes, and regulate and tax) while still denying it to those that will not trade freedoms for treatment.

[parocks]

Have you read Prop 19?

What parts of Prop 19 do you have a disagreement with?

http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/
That's a link to Prop 19 - there's a download link at the bottom

Prop 19 will allow everyone 21+ the ability to grow 25 square feet of marijuana
without any taxation or any interference from the government.

I just don't understand why people have any problem with that.



:(

Anyone should be able to grow it. Anyone should be able to grow it and sell it or trade it without government intervention.

Conventional wisdom: The vegetable garden;

I have a garden (not this year, but in years past) and grow some 'maters, peppers,beans,squash (hate it, even fried) and corn.

My neighbor comes over and grabs a basket of everything. He says.."How much?" I say... "Let me borrow your tractor and tiller in the fall so I can plant more next year."

How much tax do we owe?

If pot was decriminalized then everyone could grow it. The market would go to individuals that grew and distributed within a local radius. Local growers would compete, thus raising the quality of the product.

Since everyone could grow it prices would drop making it un-productive to large crime syndicates.

The federal government is asking for a trade off.

They will legalize it for humane purposes, and regulate and tax) while still denying it to those that will not trade freedoms for treatment.

[phill4paul]

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Which points Don't I have objections to?

[parocks]

Which points Don't I have objections to?

Could you be more specific? And this time use the actual prop, rather than the description.

But you don't like this sentence?

"Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use."

I like that sentence a lot - but that's not the actual prop.

Just look at the whole prop, find a sentence or 2 you don't like, and describe why you don't like it.

[phill4paul]

Could you be more specific? And this time use the actual prop, rather than the description.

But you don't like this sentence?

"Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use."

I like that sentence a lot - but that's not the actual prop.

Just look at the whole prop, find a sentence or 2 you don't like, and describe why you don't like it.

I don't like any of it.

Reasoning being that to allow the government to take a vote on it ( with the acquiesce of the people) gives government precedent that in matters such as this WE the people are fucked.

[parocks]

It's not legal right now to grow 25 sq ft. Prop 19 would make it legal.

Basically, you don't like it because it's a law? And you don't like any laws?
You don't even like laws that make marijuana legal?

So, basically, unless the fantasy world that you'd like to see implemented is in place, everything, including things that legalize marijuana, is bad?

I'm not against the fantasy world in which there are no laws regarding marijuana, but I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, so I'm yes on 19.

There might be specific points in Prop 19 that are bad or wrong in some way, but you haven't exactly pointed them out. I think it's a very good law myself.

Legal to grow 25 sq ft - tax free - is pretty kickass compared to the way it is now.



I don't like any of it.

Reasoning being that to allow the government to take a vote on it ( with the acquiesce of the people) gives government precedent that in matters such as this WE the people are fucked.

[speciallyblend]

Keep Weed Illegal;) easier that way

[parocks]

Keep Weed Illegal;) easier that way

So you're looking at it from the "I'm making good money from it now, any changes might not benefit me" camp?

[libertybrewcity]

Making marijuana legal in California is a step in the right direction, that is really all that needs to be said. It is better that a large company sells us our buds than sketchy people killing gangsters in Mexico.

I'll take privatization of drugs over gang violence any day.

[parocks]

I agree. This particular thread was originally about what's going on in Oakland. But if Prop 19 passes, average Joes will be able to get commercial licenses. So, large companies will be growing marijuana commercially, but average Joes will be able to grow marijuana commercially too if they want to. If you're great at growing, and you can grow the best pot ever, you'll become somewhat rich and somewhat famous.


Making marijuana legal in California is a step in the right direction, that is really all that needs to be said. It is better that a large company sells us our buds than sketchy people killing gangsters in Mexico.

I'll take privatization of drugs over gang violence any day.

[speciallyblend]

So you're looking at it from the "I'm making good money from it now, any changes might not benefit me" camp?

who is making money?? what are you talking about??? marijuana does not grow on trees;) and it has overhead ,the point is marijuana is cheaper illegal then legal!! have you ever grown from start to finish?? if you have you would think marijuana should be 600 an ounce. it is not like planting a seed then coming back at the end. it takes work!! unless your growing crappy mexican crap!!



any regulation of marijuana is bs and will only drive marijuana prices up and screw the lil guy!! cheaper to not follow the law in colorado unless you get popped 4 times a yr! which is unheard of!!!

[ClayTrainor]

the point is marijuana is cheaper illegal then legal!!

How do you figure? Increased Market competition always lowers prices. The price of pot would drop significantly if it were actually legalized.

[parocks]

I was just guessing about why you possibly would consider it better if it was illegal than if it was legal.

There are certainly people out there who are currently making money from the way that it works now. There are more than a couple dispensary owners who are against Prop 19.

Much of the cost of marijuana is the risk premium. If it was legal, the price would come down, not up. I don't have detailed understanding of the growing as you seem to, but I have read about it, and I know some people.

Some people believe that the price would fall to nothing if it was legal. I don't agree with that. Others believe that the price would stay the same. I don't agree with that either.

From what I understand, you have to spend as much time and money on growing a few plants as you would taking care of a dog.

An hour a day, every day for 3 months - some days more, most days less. Instead of dog food, you buy plant food, supplies and electricity. If Prop 19 passes, you'll be able to grow 25 square feet. 5 feet by 5 feet. You'll easily be able to get a pound every 3 months. Probably a lot more. If you're going to grow that much, maybe 2 hours a day, not just one. I dunno, just guessing.

Anyway. $600 an ounce x 16 ounces in a pound x 4 grows in a year = $38,400 a year. $600 an ounce is way too much. $100 an ounce seems a little better.
$100 x 16 x 4 = $6400 a year - for the same amount of effort as taking care of a dog.




who is making money?? what are you talking about??? marijuana does not grow on trees;) and it has overhead ,the point is marijuana is cheaper illegal then legal!! have you ever grown from start to finish?? if you have you would think marijuana should be 600 an ounce. it is not like planting a seed then coming back at the end. it takes work!! unless your growing crappy mexican crap!!

[parocks]

How do you figure? Increased Market competition always lowers prices. The price of pot would drop significantly if it were actually legalized.

Your analysis is on point, but its likely to have more complicated results.

If Prop 19 passes, and pot is immediately able to be sold in stores, the demand will spike, and the supply might not be there immediately. That would cause an upward spike in the price. That'll be short lived.

After a while, the pot market would likely look something like the alcohol market, except that not too many people make alcohol.

The best marijuana in the world will be sold in marijuana. The best growers in the world will be in California. People will travel to California to buy the best marijuana in the world, and they will spend top dollar on that marijuana. Shops will pay top dollar for the best marijuana in the world, and the grower will make top dollar if that grower is able to grow the best marijuana in the world. So, if you're the best grower, who grows the best marijuana, your profit will go up.

Most beer is cheap, some beer is expensive. Most wine is pretty cheap, some is fairly expensive, some wine is extremely expensive.

Many Californians will grow if Prop 19 passes. That will mean an increase in supply, which will likely drive prices down for commodity / generic pot. The average person won't be legally able to sell it, but would be able to legally share it. I assume that people would trade pot for more variety. Those conditions would really change the marketplace.

The drug gangs would not benefit at all by Prop 19.

[specsaregood]

I was thinking more along the lines of only allowing mandated strains. Not to strong. Not to weak. Just enough and no more. Of course I'm sure Monsanto would love to control the regulated seed. Engineered, of course, to have sterile or no seed.

You and others here might enjoy this PBS tvshow (futurestates) this particular episode:
http://www.futurestates.tv/episodes/seed

I enjoyed it and it is related to what you say above. They have it free streaming online at that link.
Synopsis:


The year is 2022. After a decade of world famine and food riots, the Mendelian Corporation now bioengineers the world’s entire commercial supply of genetically modified seeds. This comes at the expense of outlawed natural “heirloom” seeds, with their susceptibility to disease viewed as a threat to a stable food supply. The Mendelian Corporation’s control of the food supply gives it great political clout, and it has used it to consolidate great power. Rural areas and farm country are now under a corporate marshal law, and the ban on “heirloom” seed has resulted in a black market, with “seed-runners” emerging to satisfy the underground market.

Young boys seeking to serve their country are encouraged to join the Mendelian Corporation’s Sprouts youth program. The Sprouts motto “Duty First” indicates that the security of the food supply comes above all else, and that a Sprout must remain vigilant at all times. At 12 years old, Juan (Sebastian Villada) is completely devoted to the Sprouts, and to Sprouts leader and local security chief Dick Phillips (Yul Vazquez). Under his tutelage, Juan — whose mother died in a food riot a decade earlier — routinely uses his electronic “seed-sniffer” to secretly inspect the crops on neighboring farms in search of “bad seeds.” On one otherwise average day, Juan is inspecting a cornfield on the Ballard Farm when he discovers a contaminated patch. The field is burned down and the farmer is arrested.

But young Juan is torn when he finds his father Mateo (Julian Acosta) in the family barn, meeting with a man he doesn’t recognize. Juan suspects the two men are collaborating as underground seed-runners. Mateo is disappointed in his son’s blind loyalty to the corporation, and Juan is conflicted about his suspicions regarding his father, but needs help making moral sense of this new world order. The young man struggles to juggle his alliances, and in the end, his choices may change his life forever.

[ClayTrainor]

Your analysis is on point, but its likely to have more complicated results.

If Prop 19 passes, and pot is immediately able to be sold in stores, the demand will spike, and the supply might not be there immediately. That would cause an upward spike in the price. That'll be short lived.

After a while, the pot market would likely look something like the alcohol market, except that not too many people make alcohol.

The best marijuana in the world will be sold in marijuana. The best growers in the world will be in California. People will travel to California to buy the best marijuana in the world, and they will spend top dollar on that marijuana. Shops will pay top dollar for the best marijuana in the world, and the grower will make top dollar if that grower is able to grow the best marijuana in the world. So, if you're the best grower, who grows the best marijuana, your profit will go up.

Most beer is cheap, some beer is expensive. Most wine is pretty cheap, some is fairly expensive, some wine is extremely expensive.

Many Californians will grow if Prop 19 passes. That will mean an increase in supply, which will likely drive prices down for commodity / generic pot. The average person won't be legally able to sell it, but would be able to legally share it. I assume that people would trade pot for more variety. Those conditions would really change the marketplace.

The drug gangs would not benefit at all by Prop 19.

That's some great economic insight, thanks of sharing!

[RideTheDirt]

who is making money?? what are you talking about??? marijuana does not grow on trees;) and it has overhead ,the point is marijuana is cheaper illegal then legal!! have you ever grown from start to finish?? if you have you would think marijuana should be 600 an ounce. it is not like planting a seed then coming back at the end. it takes work!! unless your growing crappy mexican crap!!



any regulation of marijuana is bs and will only drive marijuana prices up and screw the lil guy!! cheaper to not follow the law in colorado unless you get popped 4 times a yr! which is unheard of!!!
I'll pay a few bucks more to not be thrown in a cage, thank you.

[specsaregood]

//

[erowe1]

Oakland pot-growing plan worries small bud tenders

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100718/ap_on_re_us/us_pot_city_cultivation;



But, I guess you take what you can get.

Why is the Walmarting of weed something we're supposed to be against?

[phill4paul]

Why is the Walmarting of weed something we're supposed to be against?

Not against the Walmarting of weed. Against government regulations that prohibit the little farmer.


The Oakland City Council on Tuesday will look at licensing four production plants where pot would be grown, packaged and processed into items ranging from baked goods to body oil. Winning applicants would have to pay $211,000 in annual permit fees, carry $2 million worth of liability insurance and be prepared to devote up to 8 percent of gross sales to taxes.