It's the CLUBS not the GROWERS!!!

[DiscoBiscuit]

no definition of terms anywhere in there

Yep, nobody quoted your thought process verbatim.

It's a shades of gray world with black and white in the mix. One may make purely black/white argument for simplicity. But the application isn't reality.

Why don't you settle the score and provide your own definition of legal? Forget micro aspects, just the definition of legal... exactly like you repeatedly asked and complained about.

It's soooo easy to tell you ignore what doesn't come back in your rebuttals.

 

[dagnabit]

dodge dip duck dive and dodge....


without knowing what "legal" means how can one say what the effect of "legal" will be on price...


you just seem to want to go round and round.
the ground is whats wearing thin.
we get no where.
why continue?
250 + posts later and we still have folks saying "when legalization happens" and they dont even know what they mean by it...

until one defines terms it is an exercise in futility.

so if and when one of you wishful thinkers can define what YOU mean by legaalization there can be no debate on legalizations impact on price.

you can go on about conjecture,subjective reasoning and created arguments all you like.

truth is YOU make the assertion legalization will drastically effect price the onus is upon YOU to define the terms.

the logical fallacy is the undefined terms.

 

[dagnabit]

Why don't you settle the score and provide your own definition of legal? Forget micro aspects, just the definition of legal... exactly like you repeatedly asked and complained about.

i did so..
do try to pay attention...

i also pointed out the inverse relationship is not supported by the historic evidence of prices versus legal status.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

dodge dip duck dive and dodge....


without knowing what "legal" means how can one say what the effect of "legal" will be on price...

you just seem to want to go round and round.
the ground is whats wearing thin.
we get no where.
why continue?

That's the beauty of the written word. When dag asks for repetition, it's too inconvenient to rebuke what was offered and printed here for posterity. Much easier for dag to ignore and pretend it never happened.

250 + posts later and we still have folks saying "when legalization happens" and they dont even know what they mean by it...

And in less than a week your price dropped $100/oz since 1997.

until one defines terms it is an exercise in futility.

Try playing the cards you deal. The only reason you pretend to be frustrated is because you pick and choose only that which suits you.

so if and when one of you wishful thinkers can define what YOU mean by legaalization there can be no debate on legalizations impact on price.

Or we could ignore the poster that's ignoring anything of choice.

you can go on about conjecture,subjective reasoning and created arguments all you like.

And you can live a world according to dag.

truth is YOU make the assertion legalization will drastically effect price the onus is upon YOU to define the terms.

We all know the arguments we make. You just have trouble debating unless it's dag format. You're welcome to participate, accept or refute what others offer. But playing the dag game is boring.

the logical fallacy is the undefined terms.

Werd to dag. The definition of legal doesn't change depending on which side of the issue you stand.

i did so..
do try to pay attention...

Ah, but I did pay attention. Your narrow example (not the definition you requested) sees folks in jurisdictional scrapes in so-called legal circumstances. Are you ignoring them too?

i also pointed out the inverse relationship is not supported by the historic evidence of prices versus legal status.

More ignoring. Your debate opponents don't rely on your historic reference which is a mix of legal and black market proportional aspects. Maybe ignoring is bliss.

You're like a rolodex. The same narrow aspects repeat as you spin.

 

[dagnabit]

That's the beauty of the written word. When dag asks for repetition, it's too inconvenient to rebuke what was offered and printed here for posterity. Much easier for dag to ignore and pretend it never happened.

would be ignored as the psychobabble ad hominem nonsense it is but wth...
meaningless diatribe that does nothing but attempt to discredit the person arguing that the legal/price relationship that current legality/prices non fluctuation does not support.

And in less than a week your price dropped $100/oz since 1997

actually that is yet another market force at work which has nothing to do with legality. that is the buying bulk discount. the "$400.oo oz you reference (had you payed attention to what you read) was buying $100.00 1/4 ounces.
nice try at yet another straw man to burn though.

Try playing the cards you deal. The only reason you pretend to be frustrated is because you pick and choose only that which suits you.

i choose to leave the logical fallacy debate tactics out of it(ie. ad hominem,straw man,undefined terms and red herrings) you seem to be so fond of using and would see you removed from a JV debate team.

Or we could ignore the poster that's ignoring anything of choice.

say something "of choice" (whatever that may be)

And you can live a world according to dag.

you mean the world where MJ has become more and more legal while price remains static shattering the myth of the inverse relationship?

We all know the arguments we make. You just have trouble debating unless it's dag format.

what "format" is that?

You're welcome to participate, accept or refute what others offer. But playing the dag game is boring.

i know right..
all that logic and lack of appeal to emotion(another well defined dishonest debate tactic)

Werd to dag.

werd indeed

The definition of legal doesn't change depending on which side of the issue you stand.

and that definition would be?

Ah, but I did pay attention. Your narrow example (not the definition you requested) sees folks in jurisdictional scrapes in so-called legal circumstances. Are you ignoring them too?

apparently not
the text your responding to is my having defined legal for purposes of this debate.
since you refuse to do we are left to rely upon my definition.
if however as the suppository of the inverse relationship you wish to provide one we will accept whatever definition you choose to provide and actually have a debate

More ignoring. Your debate opponents don't rely on your historic reference which is a mix of legal and black market proportional aspects. Maybe ignoring is bliss.

my historic reference is simple really..
legality changed price did not.
care to refute?
or will you go off on another tangent?

You're like a rolodex. The same narrow aspects repeat as you spin.

"pot/kettle"

we spin because we cant even agree on a simple definition of terms.
until we can we will spin.

so again i implore you..
offer (even the broadest) definition of terms and i will accept said definition.
then we can move forward debating the effects of prohibition on price.
hell we can even make predictions of how "legalization" will effect price.

would it have been prop 19?
maybe just the cannatopia free for all?
any definition is better than none
(unless of course the ambiguity is the only thing holding your farce together)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

would be ignored as the psychobabble ad hominem nonsense it is but wth...
meaningless diatribe that does nothing but attempt to discredit the person arguing that the legal/price relationship that current legality/prices non fluctuation does not support.


actually that is yet another market force at work which has nothing to do with legality. that is the buying bulk discount. the "$400.oo oz you reference (had you payed attention to what you read) was buying $100.00 1/4 ounces.
nice try at yet another straw man to burn though.


i choose to leave the logical fallacy debate tactics out of it(ie. ad hominem,straw man,undefined terms and red herrings) you seem to be so fond of using and would see you removed from a JV debate team.


say something "of choice" (whatever that may be)


you mean the world where MJ has become more and more legal while price remains static shattering the myth of the inverse relationship?


what "format" is that?


i know right..
all that logic and lack of appeal to emotion(another well defined dishonest debate tactic)


werd indeed

and that definition would be?




apparently not
the text your responding to is my having defined legal for purposes of this debate.
since you refuse to do we are left to rely upon my definition.
if however as the suppository of the inverse relationship you wish to provide one we will accept whatever definition you choose to provide and actually have a debate


my historic reference is simple really..
legality changed price did not.
care to refute?
or will you go off on another tangent?




"pot/kettle"

we spin because we cant even agree on a simple definition of terms.
until we can we will spin.

so again i implore you..
offer (even the broadest) definition of terms and i will accept said definition.
then we can move forward debating the effects of prohibition on price.
hell we can even make predictions of how "legalization" will effect price.

would it have been prop 19?
maybe just the cannatopia free for all?
any definition is better than none
(unless of course the ambiguity is the only thing holding your farce together)

dag tag - a game, nothing else

 

[dagnabit]

dag tag - a game, nothing else

more ad hominem..

thrown off a 7th grade debate team for it..

before you go on about "cry baby"

im just pointing out the tactics of a weak argument.
not complaining so much as laughing @ you

 

[kmk420kali]

#1 Its not legal.

The cops can rip you off, you can't do shit about it.

The feds can throw you in jail, you can't do shit about it.

You become a felon and lose your rights as a citizen.

You are denied disability benefits based on use.

Thank you Blue Dot...er, I mean TOL...for substantiating the reasons for high prices--

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

more ad hominem..

thrown off a 7th grade debate team for it..

before you go on about "cry baby"

im just pointing out the tactics of a weak argument.
not complaining so much as laughing @ you

play yer fiddle faddle

 

[kmk420kali]

It's simple alright. We've got a gray market.

Try to support what the D is doing to suppliers if you think buyers are happy as fuck. Both ends are getting screwed by the same component with a twin d*ck.

Hahaha!! Bro, I am a Grower for a Collective, and we have our own Dispensary--
I do not, and will not sell my Meds (What I grow at home) to them (us) at the prices they want to pay-- I have waaaay more Game than that--

 

[dagnabit]

play yer fiddle faddle

more of the same...

running out of ways to obfuscate?

getting weaker
from the way you "debate" (i hesitate to call it that) you could use a bit of an education..
the following is list from roberts rules of order.

Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert’s Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers” or in my case, books—questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent’s facts or logic wrong is it invalid. If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be the answer to why. But let’s cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Poining out the suspicious motive only indicates there is no error, just an atempt to insinuate an error by innuendo.

Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject
False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”
Hearsay: debater cites something he heard but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources

Unqualified expert opinion: debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; in court, an expert must prove his qualifications and be certified by the judge before he can give an opinion
Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dad’s “Don’t work for money, make money work for you” is a classic example. In sports, coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism.
Motivation end justifies dishonest means: debater admits he is lying or using fallacious logic but excuses this on the grounds that he is motivating the audience to accomplish a good thing and that end justifies the intellectually-dishonest means

Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate on the grounds that he believes he is more likable than the opponent
Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present
Playing on widely held fantasies: debater offers facts or logic that support the fantasies of the audience thereby triggering powerful desires to believe that override normal desire for truth or logic

Claiming privacy with regard to claims about self: debater makes favorable claims about himself, but when asked for details or proof of the claims, refuses to provide any claiming privacy; true privacy is not mentioning tem to begin with; bragging but refusing to prove is silly on its face and it is a rather self-servingly selctive use of the right of privacy

Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic

Scapegoating: debater blames problems on persons other than the audience; this is a negative version of playing on widely-held fantasies; it plays on widely-held animosities or dislikes
Arousing envy: debater attempts to get the audience to dislike his opponent because the audience is envious of something that can be attributed to the opponent

Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes, like leftists calling government spending “investment”

Citing over-valued credentials: debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to over-rely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the audience; for example, some con men point to registration of a trademark or corporation as evidence of approval by the government of the con man’s goods or services

Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: debater claims to be a member of a group that members of the audience are also members of like a religion, ethnic group, veterans group, and so forth; the debater’s hope is that the audience members will let their guard down with regard to facts and logic as a result and that they will give their alleged fellow group member the benefit of any doubt or even my-group-can-do-no-wrong immunity, also called affinity fraud

Accusation of taking a quote out of context: debater accuses opponent of taking a quote that makes the debater look bad out of context. All quotes are taken out of context—for two reasons: quoting the entire context would take too long and federal copyright law allows “fair use” quotes but not reproduction of the entire text. Taking a quote out of context is only wrong when the lack of the context misrepresents the author’s position. The classic example would be the movie review that says, “This movie is the best best example of a waste of film I have ever seen,” then gets quoted as “This movie is the best...I’ve ever seen.” Any debater who claims a quote misrepresents the author’s position must cite the one or more additional quotes from the same work that supply the missing context and thereby reveal the true meaning of the author, a meaning which is very different from the meaning conveyed by the original quote that they complained about. Furthermore, other unrelated quotes that just prove the speaker is a nice guy are irrelevant. The discussion is about the offending quotes, not whether the speaker is a good guy. The missing context must relate to, and change the meaning of, the statements objected to, not just serve as character witness material about the speaker or writer. Merely pointing out that the quote is not the entire text proves nothing. Indeed, if a search of the rest of the work reveals no additional quotes that show the original quote was misleading, the accusation itself is dishonest.

Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.

Rejecting facts or logic as opinion: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion of the opponent. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. Frequently, when I explain one of my conclusions with facts and logic, my debate opponent dismisses those facts and logic as merely “your opinion.” That is a lie. Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki says incorporating enables you to deduct a vacation to Hawaii as a board meeting on your federal income taxes. He’s wrong. It’s not my opinion. It’s the Internal Revenue Code Section 162(a) which you can read for yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000162----000-.html. Whether you can deduct a trip to Hawaii has nothing to do with whether you are incorporated. And you cannot deduct a vacation. It has to be an “ordinary and necessary business” expense. Travel expenses which are “lavish or extravagant” are explicitly not deductible according to IRC §162(a)(2). The fact that Kiyosaki and his CPA co-author differ from my statements on that subject are not matters of opinion. They are either lying or incompetent. I am accurately describing the law.

Argument from intimidation: [from a reader] The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea." This is reminiscent of the McCarthy era loyalty oaths or groups that demand that candidates take a yes or no position on complex issues.

Theatrical fake laughter or sighs: This can be wordless but it says what you just said is so ridiculously wrong that we must laugh at it. Hillary tried this without much success in the 2008 presidenital campaign. It is intellectually dishonest and devoid of any intelligence, facts, or logic. The whole Democrat party laughed at Sarah Palin. They were successful with this tactic in spite of the fact that conspicuous by its absence in that “explanation” of how she was such a joke was any evidence or logic to show how a guy who was never mayor or governor or head of anything else was better qualified for the top executive job in the world than a person who was a mayor and a governor. Al Gore made the sigh debate tactic famous in the 2000 presidential debates and the ensuing Saturday Night Live parodies of it. On 6/2/09, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams celebrated this tactic in a comic strip that had Dilbert saying to the pointy-haried boss, “I like what you’ve done with your dismissive scoffing sound.” In 2010, Nancy Pelosi used a verbal version of this when she said, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” in “response” to the question where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to order Americans to buy health insurance.

Innuendo: an indirect remark, gesture, or reference, usually implying something derogatory.
My resume’s bigger than yours. All the more reason why you ought to be able to cite specific errors or omissions in my facts or logic, yet still you cannot.

Insinuation: a sly, subtle, and usually derogatory reference
Halo effect claims of expertise: Implying you are an expert in X when your actual expertise is far narrower than X or even unrelated to X. This is a, “You know I’m right because I’m really smart.” Dr. Laura arguably did this daily in that she implied she had a doctorate in relationships when, in fact, her Ph.D. was in physiology (the study of the mechanical, physical, and biochemical functions of living organisms). She has a USC certificate in Marriage, Family, and Child Counseling. The halo effect is the tendency of people who do not know a person to assume if they are good at A—the first impression on the other person—they must be good at everything. The epitome of smarts today are things like Rhodes Scholarship or a Nobel Prize. In fact, winning either of those means no more than that the person in question met the specific qualifications to get the award and no other qualifications. The same is true of all sorts of mystique accomplishments or experiences like being an Army ranger or a Navy SEAL or a former POW and so on. Army rangers, of which I am one, have about two months of training in patrolling behind enemy lines including ambushing and small hit-and-run attacks. There are also ever-so brief introductions to mountaineering and rubber rafting techniques. But many believe and are encouraged by the Army and some rangers to believe that being a ranger makes you a sort of general superman. High school graduate movie stars with no training or expertise in government policy pontificating about government policy are another example of persons using their success in one realm to imply high expertise in an unrelated field.

Peer approval of subjective opinion: “Proving” correctness of a subjective statement by citing the approval of political allies in the same subject—so-called peer review in academia. Peer approval has value when it relates to objective standards like those in mathematics, chemistry, and physics. Such peers check the accuracy of calculations, the cleanliness of laboratories, and whether they can replicate the results in their own experiments. But peer review is of little probative (proving) value when it relates to subjective areas like sociology, economics, or women’s studies where the peers in question, and indeed the whole field or large portions of it, have a particular political agenda. What is considered correct academic teaching in high schools is determined by long-term, circular, self-reinforcing, peer group-think unaffected by results achieved by their students. Meanwhile, at those very same high schools, numerous coaches and athletic directors decide what is correct by whether it produces victory in athletic competition against other high schools.

Ill-defined words: This could be called wine taster approval. In his book Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell says leftist intellectuals use words of approval like:
• complex
• exciting
• innovative
• nuanced

and words and phrases of dismissal like:
• simplistic
• outmoded
• reactionary
• turn back the clock

These words have little or no meaning therefore cannot convey facts or logic therefore they are intellectually-dishonest debate tactics when used to argue a point.

Finding small error: Citing a slight error or typo as evidence that everything the opponent says is false or that the opponent is “unprofessional” or incompetent (name calling, ill-defined words).
Protest-too-much quantity of sources: This is citing an overly long list of legal or other purportedly-autoritative citations to prove the opponent is wrong. For example, people who claim income taxes are unconstitutional typically cite a book-length list of court decisions and statute sections to “prove” they are right. In fact, income taxes are constitutional because of the XVI Amendment to the Constitution as upheld by numerous court decisions over 97 years that have dismissed the long lists of legal citations as “frivolous,” typically fining the litigant for pursuing the suit at all. Actor Wesley Snipes went to prison after failing to pay his income taxes on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. Part of the trick of this debate tactic is to get the opponent to spend days researching all the citations.

Accusing opponent of being overly “simplistic:” Thomas Sowell identifies this intellectually-dishonest debate tactic on page 80 of his book Intellectuals and Society where he says, “…certain arguments are unworthy because they are ‘simplistic’—not as a conclusion from counter-evidence or counter-arguments, but in lieu of counter-evidence or counter-arguments. With one word, it preempts the intellectual highground without offering anything substantive. Before an answer can be too simple, it must first be wrong. But often the fact that some explanation seems too simple becomes a substitute for showing that it is wrong. Virtually any answer to virtually any question can be made to seem simplistic by expanding the question to unanswerable dimensions and then deriding the now inadequate answer as simplistic” [Emphasis in original]

Assertion of non-existent ‘rights.’ E.g., the “right” to affordable health care and housing, the “right” to a job, a living wage, and so on. Some such “rights” become law, in which case they are technically now rights, but “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinsess” are the only true rights in America. The rest are various forms of forced charity contributions—typically forcing wealthier or less politically powerful Americans to subsidize poorer, more politically powerful ones.

Claiming hyperbole = dishonesty. For example, I have often repeated someone else’s observation that, “The green movement is the red movement in disguise.” My debate opponent claims he is green, but not red, therefore I am a liar or wrong because I said that every single environmentalist was Communist. In another example, I noted that a mainstream media outlet—NY Times or Newsweek I think, tried to get comment on Obama from his Columbia classmates. After asking 400 who said they never met or heard of him at Columbia, I cited that and commented “Nobod knew him at Columbia.” or words to that effect. My debate opponent claimed there was one person who said they did remember—not in the 400—and that was all that was necessary to prove I was wrong. Does the word “pedantic” mean anything to you? If not, here is one of the Webster’s Dictionary definitions of “pedant:” “A person who overrates the importance of minor or trivial points of learning; displaying a scholarship lacking in judgment or sense of proportion.” The implication of this debate tactic is that all characterizations of large data sets must be stated in percentages to the third or fourth decimal point. Of course, such data is not available in most cases and would take considerable effort to dig up if it did exist. Hyperbole exists to deal with such situations. Hyperbole is also a distinctly American form of humor. The British, in contrast, generally use understatement to achieve humorous effect in similar situations.
Repeating sarcasm without indicating it was sarcasm. One of the cardinal rules when you give an unvideoed deposition is never to use sarcasm. Sarcasm is a statement which is the opposite of what you believe. The key is that you say it in a tone of voice that reveals how stupid a statement you think it is. The phrase, “Yeah, right” is the classic example. But dishonest trial lawyers will quote what you said in the deposition transcript and leave out the sarcastic tone of voice, e.g., The lawyer asks in the deposition if you believe the sun rises in the west and you say, sarcastically, “Yeah, right.” Then in court, he reads that part of the definition making it sound like you agreed with the statement that the sun rises in the West.

Sunk cost. Decisions should be based and evaluated on what you know now, where you are now, where you want to go, and what the best way to get there is—only. Taking into account past expenditures of money or effort is flat wrong and utterly irrelevant to decisions. This concept is also embodied in phrases like “water over the dam,” “water under the bridge,” “Don’t cry over spilt milk,” “what’s done is done,” “throwing good money after bad,” and “cut your losses.”
Both sides of the story. The media is trained to get “both sides of the story.” And they do mechanically, mindlessly. But what law of nature says there are only, or always, two sides to a story? Sometimes there is one; sometimes two; sometimes more than two. When this is used in an intellectually-dishonest way it is typically to elevate a bogus argument to equality with a valid one. You see this with the anti-vaccine movement, global warming, urban legends, superstition. Bad science and urban legends do not deserve equal time on the stage of public debate just because of the notion that there are “two sides to every story.”
Political correctness. I hesitate to cite this as a debate tactic because it is more accurately described as a refusal to debate. Al Gore recently said regarding an argument against his global warming theory that “the debate is over.” Gee. Who is the one who gets to decide that? Is he some kind of king or pope who gets to order the rest of us around? Doesn’t our constitution, including the part about free speech, prohibit such a censor in chief? The politically correct have a list of statements that, to them, cannot be debated. If you say anything that conflicts with the list, the politically correct denounce your ideas and you in the most extreme ways alleging racism, idiocy, “hate speech,” etc. The vehemence of their language is exceeded only by the certainty of their conviction that they are 100.0000% right. Of course, it’s easier to be certain when you only have to check a list than when you have to figure stuff out using facts and logic. The realm of the politically correct is a facts- and logic-free zone.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hahaha!! Bro, I am a Grower for a Collective, and we have our own Dispensary--
I do not, and will not sell my Meds (What I grow at home) to them (us) at the prices they want to pay-- I have waaaay more Game than that--

Well done, kmk420kali. You're avoiding the twin phallic fallacy. At least on the catcher's side.

BTW, both ends refers to short sold wholesalers [and] bilked consumers.

 

[kmk420kali]

Well done, kmk420kali. You're avoiding the twin phallic fallacy. At least on the catcher's side.

BTW, both ends refers to short sold wholesalers [and] bilked consumers.

Except that I do not play both ends-- I make no profit, outside of my salary...for growing for the Collective-- I work there to make $$...same as anybody else does at their job--
Does not mean I agree with their Policies...because I do not, and they are very much aware of this--
What I produce at my house, is mine..and I distribute it as I feel right--

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

It is not the Growers or the Dispensaries...it is the Consumers!!
As long as ppl pay the price, the price will be charged-- Pretty friggin' simple!!
I have spent many hours working at the D...and seen many go through there, and they were all Happy as Fuck, to buy their weed!!
This is not a "Blame Game"...just if you're gonna lay blame, lay it where it belongs--

I hate to admit it, but just as a matter of interest to myself and another, we took two strains, one that was far better then another and priced them reversed to see what it is that people really went for when purchasing their medication.

Was it price that drove the sale, or was it the presentation of buying the "best of the best"?

We took (lets call it strain x so we dont step toes) which was the higher quality of the two and we priced it at 13-gram/40-8th/75-1/4oz.

Then we took (again i dont want to put any names out, so lets just call it strain z) which was the lower quality strain and we priced it at 25-gram/75-8th/130-1/4oz.

Same amount of product. Priced reveresed. Both Sold and presented in the same manner by employees unbeknowst to our experiment.

Any of you care to venture which strain sold out first?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Except that I do not play both ends-- I make no profit, outside of my salary...for growing for the Collective-- I work there to make $$...same as anybody else does at their job--
Does not mean I agree with their Policies...because I do not, and they are very much aware of this--
What I produce at my house, is mine..and I distribute it as I feel right--

Thanks, kmk420kali. With all respect, mine isn't a rebuke of dispensaries or their employees. It's a rebuke of astronomical markup by some dispensaries that regulate w/s cost yet keep black-market level pricing.

As far as what you do in your business, it's not even my business to comment. Even if it was invited I'd defer to your interests.

If and when we see regulation that further separates black-market level markup, I hope it's still the caliber of livelihood you deserve.

I also think it's commendable that you make your opinions known to the D.

Not trying to fluff, that's honestly how I feel.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Thank you Blue Dot...er, I mean TOL...for substantiating the reasons for high prices--

AHHHH it ALL makes sense now.. I thought this guy sounded mighty familiar

 

[kmk420kali]

Thanks, kmk420kali. With all respect, mine isn't a rebuke of dispensaries or their employees. It's a rebuke of astronomical markup by some dispensaries that regulate w/s cost yet keep black-market level pricing.

But that is the same as what I said before...if ppl didn't break down and pay those prices, the D's would not be able to get them--
I don't think you will see a major cut in pricing anytime soon...because ppl are willing to pay those prices-- This is apparent by the multitudes of D's that are all doing a thriving business at those same prices--
The same goes for us Growers..as long as there are enough ppl willing to sell at the lowball pricing, it will continue--

I also think it's commendable that you make your opinions known to the D.

Not trying to fluff, that's honestly how I feel.

They think I am Crazy for my attitude...and my Job is in debate, as they are trying to say I am not a "Team" Player...but as I told them, I give 100% for the Team...I grow you the best Herb that I can, and they are consistently happy with it--
But don't bitch when I work "Out of Contract"...when I don't have one!! lol

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I hate to admit it, but just as a matter of interest to myself and another, we took two strains, one that was far better then another and priced them reversed to see what it is that people really went for when purchasing their medication.

Was it price that drove the sale, or was it the presentation of buying the "best of the best"?

We took (lets call it strain x so we dont step toes) which was the higher quality of the two and we priced it at 13-gram/40-8th/75-1/4oz.

Then we took (again i dont want to put any names out, so lets just call it strain z) which was the lower quality strain and we priced it at 25-gram/75-8th/130-1/4oz.

Same amount of product. Priced reveresed. Both Sold and presented in the same manner by employees unbeknowst to our experiment.

Any of you care to venture which strain sold out first?

I wouldn't bet it's the strain that disputes your example. There are those that assume higher prices means higher quality. And there are those that take advantage of what appears to them to be the better value. Lastly, those who recognized more oomph for less green are, uh... #WINNING! At least as far as consumers win in Ds.

The human nature experiment is interesting. IMO, far more complex than a side-by-side grow comparison. One might need a sociologist to extrapolate the compound aspects that are observed singularly. IMO, you're suggesting that price doesn't matter, it'll move regardless. Can't argue with that, it's reality. You proved it.

But my take is there isn't anything to justify b/m level markup in so-called legal Ds, especially when they shaft the wholesaler.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

But that is the same as what I said before...if ppl didn't break down and pay those prices, the D's would not be able to get them--
I don't think you will see a major cut in pricing anytime soon...because ppl are willing to pay those prices-- This is apparent by the multitudes of D's that are all doing a thriving business at those same prices--
The same goes for us Growers..as long as there are enough ppl willing to sell at the lowball pricing, it will continue--

Willing customers and willing wholesalers. Sounds like a formula for success.

I have two friends that sell gas. One friend ups the typical 2 to 3 cents per gallon. I guess with the increased pricing, his supplier may allow more markup without penalizing the next wholesale delivery.

My other buddy sports the Exxon logo. Poor guy wants 5 to 7 cents m/u (based on w/s pricing from the same distributor.) Come next delivery, Exxon manipulates his w/s price when we're talking about the same supplier. All those retail names jell in the same hodgepodge of wholesale supply.

So this poor guy lowers his price to escape the wholesale differential. The only local customers buy gum, soda beer and cigs. Tourists buy the gas and they don't know the price unless they look at the pump. The proprietor can't even list his retail on the marquee.

Not only does the supplier regulate the w/s rate, retail prices reflect wholesale stringently. The Ds are influenced by the b/m when it comes to markup. What's happening to suppliers defies capitalist convention. IMO, hybrid aspects make willing in the D market more like little alternative.

I agree about things not changing anytime soon. I know I mention sooner than later but that's pie in the sky stuff. I won't sez it no mo.

They think I am Crazy for my attitude...and my Job is in debate, as they are trying to say I am not a "Team" Player...but as I told them, I give 100% for the Team...I grow you the best Herb that I can, and they are consistently happy with it--
But don't bitch when I work "Out of Contract"...when I don't have one!! lol

Hell yeah bro, best wishes with the situation.

 

[Storm Shadow]

DiscoBiscut Dude! Your a typing Machine! Are you an Astronaut on I.S.S messing with all of us