Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else

[bentom187]

The regulation of drugs or any industry at all was a sneaky illegal move on the part of congress, which is included in the article. Government intervention is a cancer on prosperity and innovation. I believe the interventionists see problems of the free market where literally none exist and advocate for more regulation as the solution. Their solution is the cause of the problem. It is also the reason our choices of recourse are diminishing, which is why begging for legalization and regulation is one of our last few choices. We are,if the interventionist get their way, going to repeat this faulty train of thought into perpetuity without a critical look at its problem. Education and reasoning with them through logical deduction is a key element to fixing this problem we face as well as to understand economics. Human Action
There are extremely easy voluntary solutions for the market to regulate the industries that are ineffectual, a drain on society and ones that people do not see as useful or dangerous. It literally boils down to common sense and communicating that common sense to other consumers and to the producers with your money. No force or coercion necessary.

A Primer on Regulation

A popular economics textbook that I once had to use while working as an adjunct professor had a section on government regulation in which the authors likened it to the placement of a stop sign at a busy intersection or a rule that was meant to prevent individuals from behaving dishonestly.

The authors were partly correct; regulation does, in fact, serve as a device that limits activities of people in the marketplace. However, their clear implication is wrong: they tell students that without government regulation in economic activity, the economy itself would erupt into chaos.

That is untrue on two counts. First, one must distinguish regulation (which often is specific to a certain area of business) from law (which is more general). For example, there are laws against fraud, and long before governments began to regulate the US economy, people brought alleged fraud cases to court, as well as other tort action that existed under a common law system. Thus, the allegations that without government regulation, there would be no legal oversight of markets are untrue.

The second misconception is that there are no self-regulatory aspects of individual behavior in a market setting. This does not only mean a belief that there are no self-policing mechanisms, but also that markets operate on the edge of chaos. This is patently untrue. Because private enterprise works on a voluntary basis, a business owner cannot coerce someone to do business with him. Things like loss of reputation, shoddy products, poor service and the like serve as real boundaries for business owners, who in a free market survive only by offering goods that people are willing to purchase.

Moreover, there are numerous private (read that, voluntary) organizations that police businesses, settle disputes, independently test products, and provide needed information for consumers and producers alike. Yes, these organizations do have a regulating effect upon the behavior of individuals who participate in private production and exchange. Thus, the statist claim that without government, markets would be a chaotic mess is simply untrue.

Given the reality that markets are self-regulating, how did the US economy (not to mention economies of other nations) become a morass of hundreds of thousands of state, local, and federal regulations that govern things to the minutest detail? Furthermore, why have we not seen a revolt of business owners and consumers alike, who ultimately pay the price for the modern regulatory state? The answer is both simple— and complex.

Regulation is like inflation; both are portrayed as bad things, both are products of the state, yet they persist. And they persist because at least some influential individuals are benefiting from them. Thus, those who gain are going to make sure that these issues are portrayed in the most favorable light.

For example, when Keynesian economists urge the Federal Reserve System to lower interest rates and follow an easy money policy, they do not openly declare that they are pro-inflation. Yet, there is no way for the Fed to follow such a policy unless it helps to unleash inflation, since it causes the amount of money in an economy to increase relative to available goods and services. Furthermore, as has been documented on this page many times, the continual unleashing of inflation leads to capital malinvestments and ultimately creates the conditions for economic contraction.

When politicians, economists, and pundits urge the Fed to lower interest rates and expand bank reserves, they do so in the name of "increasing credit" or "creating investment and jobs." They do not acknowledge the larger issues of inflation, nor do they address the ultimate consequences of such policies.

Likewise, we hear advocates of government regulation extolling the virtues of the regulated economy. For example, they hold up the collapse of Enron as an example of what happens in the absence of regulation, not pointing out that the energy industry is highly regulated. Moreover, Enron’s problems did not occur because of its investments in the relatively unregulated area of derivatives, but because of its heavy losses in the regulated sectors of consulting and technology. For that matter, the collapse of numerous savings and loan institutions during the late 1980s occurred in a very heavily regulated industry—but also an industry that had been a favorite haunt of the political classes, which saw S&Ls as cash cows for campaign contributions and other favors.

The regulatory apparatus that now inundates business owners and other professionals with hundreds of thousands of regulations in this country is a product of the Progressive Era. Economic regulation, however, is much older. For example, one of the best-known regulators in history was Jean Baptist Colbert, the finance minister for Louis XIV who regulated the French economy down to the required thickness of threads for textiles. Regulation was not the exception of post-Medieval Europe and England, but the rule, as has been documented by Robert Ekelund and Robert Tollison in their book Politicized Economies.

What is important to remember here is that regulation in those times —while being publicized as something to enhance the "public good" (read that, the political authorities)— was used primarily as a tool to promote politically-favored monopolies and to strangle economic competition. One thing that made the new American colonies favorable places to live was that their business practices were relatively unregulated by government, as opposed to what existed in the Old World.

For about a century after the founding of the United States, business activity faced little or no government regulation, especially compared with the situation in modern times. That began to change during the Progressive Era, as noted before, a period of time in the late 1800s and early 1900s when the intellectual foundations of law and justice in the United States were turned upside down.

Advocates of Progressivism, which included many intellectuals and journalists of that day, along with politicians such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, and Woodrow Wilson, held that the federal system of delegated powers was archaic and out of date for a "modern, progressive" society. Their legal strategy did not only include stripping powers from state and local governments and transferring them to Washington, DC, but they also were successful in convincing members of Congress to give up their own constitutionally-designated powers.

This was done through the crafting of regulatory agencies. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to "regulate" interstate commerce, but the regulatory agencies that Congress created to carry out the increasing number of rules were part of the executive branch of the US government. In other words, Congress, through a legal sleight of hand, redelegated those powers that the Constitution had given Congress, which clearly was a violation of that document.

The first of these agencies was the Interstate Commerce Commission, formed in 1887 to regulate railroads. (This agency set railroad freight and passenger rates, and allocated lines, which turned the nation’s once-competitive railroad firms into one vast regulated cartel.) Other agencies followed such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. By the end of the twentieth century, regulatory agencies dominated the political and economic landscape of this country.

Defenders of the practice of re-delegation (which was routinely approved by the federal courts, which also became stacked with "progressives") argued that the regulatory agencies simply were carrying out the mandate of Congress, which supposedly specified the bounds of regulation in laws that created the agencies or that created new mandates for agencies to follow. Furthermore, it has been argued that there is no law in which regulation of actions can be specific enough to cover every aspect of a certain subject. Regulations, according to this line of argument, must serve the same purpose for civil and criminal law that the Talmud does for the Torah. Regulations do not change the intention of the law, but rather help to spell out its specifics.

That most certainly is not true. Take for example the use of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a tool to impose things like racial quotas, despite the fact that the act expressly forbids such quotas. (Sen. Hubert Humphrey, speaking on the US Senate floor in favor of the bill, declared that he would "eat" the paper upon which the law was written if it contained racial quotas.) Seven years later, the US Supreme Court would agree with the US Commission on Civil Rights that the language of that law permitted such quotas.

Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton have documented in their book The Tyranny of Good Intentions, that federal courts generally defer to the bureaucracies in how they interpret the laws written by Congress. Thus, the executive branch has become a secondary producer of law, its interpreter, as well as its enforcer. The upshot of all this is that government regulations today supposedly operate under the aegis of Congress but in reality have become a law unto themselves, with bureaucrats being the nearly-untouchable enforcers.

Take, for example, the numerous abuses of taxpayers by agents from the Internal Revenue Service. As James Bovard painstakingly noted in Feeling Your Pain, IRS agents time and again have acted illegally, yet have faced no consequences, legal or otherwise. The reason is that regulators answer only to themselves or other members of the executive branch, and unless the political heat becomes unbearable, they usually are given a free pass.

This system clearly is unconstitutional—if one holds to the actual language of the US Constitution—yet it is almost universally praised and admired. Conservatives may say they decry regulations against business, but they were first in line to demand that the FCC "investigate" the Super Bowl Halftime Show.

Leftists, on the other hand, support the maze of environmental and energy regulations, not to mention the complete regulation of the nation’s financial sector. About the only grumbles one hears from regulation’s supporters, both right and left, is that federal agencies do not use their powers enough and more forcefully.

This Byzantine and out-of-control system cannot be "fixed" by politicians. Furthermore, no US president is going to voluntarily surrender his powers in the way that Congress has done over the past century. Yet, the modern regulatory apparatus is as much a threat to the freedom and well-being of us all as was the destructive system of rules imposed by Colbert upon the hapless French populace.

It is not becoming a law unto itself; it already has reached that stage. The only thing that can be done to end this reign of terror by bureaucrats is to abolish the entire US regulatory system and return to the common law system that served this country so well for so long.

 

[Seaf0ur]

The key here is to get the politicians to bring back THIS and try it again today... so if you live in a state with one, write one of the co-sponsors, ask them to try again.

 

[bentom187]

The key here is to get the politicians to bring back THIS and try it again today... so if you live in a state with one, write one of the co-sponsors, ask them to try again.

That was one short and sweet piece of legislation that would have done a lot in terms of repeal. Which is what we need. De-regulation.

 

[Jhhnn]

With all the yellow RFID tags things have tightened up in the dispensary, but there are always ways to fudge numbers... especially with caregiverships and multiple grow locations...

There will always be those with the testicular fortitude to get it done no matter what... even in Texas.

Maybe when lil budtang gets off probation and is allowed out of mommys basement, he'll show us all how its done....

But I'm rather certain that most of us who've been round the block a few times have seen his kind come and go...

LOL... the folks in his home town certainly have.

I think have a fair idea of the caregivership thing & it's impact on the overall scene. It's not huge. I figure the whole MMJ thing will fade as Retail comes on line, gets dialed in. All of it will change a great deal over the next few years.

Like it or not, part of what helped the passage of A64 was a well lubricated campaign sponsored by CO business interests & others. You could say that we made a deal with the devil, depending on your perspective. It is, however, a done deal, so we all get to live with it for the foreseeable future.

Some of the canna operators have very deep pockets & very ambitious plans. The perspective from the top of the economic heap Is different, I think, in that they can see farther & have the means to exploit possibilities that are over the horizon for the rest of us.

Take an outfit like River Rock. Love 'em or hate 'em, they've been highly successful. They clearly intend to go big time, nationwide in some form or another. That's why they hired the guy who worked for Monsanto awhile back. He's an AgBiz insider of the highest order with clout & credibility in those circles. He's a big league hired gun, probably a damned good one.

And that *is* the Devil we dealt with. Not just River Rock, but other ambitious risk takers as well. When it's only money, the big boys will take big risks. For better or worse, they *will* take a piece of it. It's baked in. They helped us, a lot. I don't think we'd be here w/o 'em. It's their due.

That's another way of looking at it.

OTOH, our take is tremendous, locked in at a State Constitution level. On balance, I think we have the tools to keep 'em honest as well. Personal possession & growing are key to that on a multiplicity of levels.

It's also important to recognize who got left behind, more or less. That's smaller grey/black market growers. So far, I think, they've benefited in this transitional phase by being cheaper. That may well change. It's harder for the cops to bust 'em, as well. That won't change.

As you say, that's a matter of balls. The prisons are full of guys who had the balls to do whatever but didn't have the combination of brains & luck to make it work well. Everybody gets to sort it out for themselves, take their own chances. Best of luck to all the peaceful & righteous players, for sure.

I get what I want not really taking any chances & so do a lot of other people, I'm sure. I just keep my side of the street clean, ya know? Holdin' up my end of the deal, I figure the Devil has to hold up his end, too.

 

[LSWM]

Regulation comes under the guise of protection. Without regulation milk alone would kill a small portion of our population. Was that portion too dumb to deserve to live? Possibly, but our compassion for others forces people to act toward regulation.

I can hear thousands of moms screaming, "but what about the children!?" As marijuana becomes legalized.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Regulation comes under the guise of protection. Without regulation milk alone would kill a small portion of our population. Was that portion too dumb to deserve to live? Possibly, but our compassion for others forces people to act toward regulation.

I can hear thousands of moms screaming, "but what about the children!?" As marijuana becomes legalized.

fuck their children, legalization is for adults. if they don't want their children to smoke pot, maybe they should get involved in their childrens lives instead of expecting the federal govt and schools to raise them, & the rest of us having to suffer from bullshit prohibition to "protect" their witless fucking little darlings...alcohol will kill far more of those kids than pot ever will. they need to get a great big glass of STFU & chug it! morons...

 

[LSWM]

fuck their children, legalization is for adults. if they don't want their children to smoke pot, maybe they should get involved in their childrens lives instead of expecting the federal govt and schools to raise them, & the rest of us having to suffer from bullshit prohibition to "protect" their witless fucking little darlings...alcohol will kill far more of those kids than pot ever will. they need to get a great big glass of STFU & chug it! morons...

And only a small portion of those children would smoke, and only a small portion of them would it be detrimental to their development.

Yet still we cry for regulation, just to save those few whose parents couldnt do their own regulation, and children who may never have survived outside of this compassionate society.

 

[armedoldhippy]

And only a small portion of those children would smoke, and only a small portion of them would it be detrimental to their development.

Yet still we cry for regulation, just to save those few whose parents couldnt do their own regulation, and children who may never have survived outside of this compassionate society.

absolutely! we prevent sick people that NEED it from receiving it or growing it themselves at low to no cost versus high-dollar pharmaceuticals with horrible side effects, we arrest & incarcerate thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, ruin countless lives through legal records, prevent young people from getting student loans or even entering school at all, fire employed people for testing positive for something that harms no one, and have built a prison industry that demand MORE victims each year to stay in the black, and for what? to let fools that believe mindless drivel about the demon weed marihuana keep telling themselves that their little Johnny is special & must be protected from reality at the expense of every other citizen in this country.

 

[Jhhnn]

Regulation comes under the guise of protection. Without regulation milk alone would kill a small portion of our population. Was that portion too dumb to deserve to live? Possibly, but our compassion for others forces people to act toward regulation.

I can hear thousands of moms screaming, "but what about the children!?" As marijuana becomes legalized.

We seem to have that last bit covered, for the most part, by treating marijuana like alcohol. And we're all about paying taxes to support schools, alcohol & drug education programs.

It's not like teen availability has become better.

The one thing lacking in top to bottom decrim all along was the fact that parents got no reassurances about that. And if possession alone was decriminalized, then pot still has to come from somewhere, somewhere illegal where there are no such reassurances.

Treating it like alcohol, top to bottom, puts it in a frame that everybody understands.

 

[WaittillIdie]

absolutely! we prevent sick people that NEED it from receiving it or growing it themselves at low to no cost versus high-dollar pharmaceuticals with horrible side effects, we arrest & incarcerate thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens, ruin countless lives through legal records, prevent young people from getting student loans or even entering school at all, fire employed people for testing positive for something that harms no one, and have built a prison industry that demand MORE victims each year to stay in the black, and for what? to let fools that believe mindless drivel about the demon weed marihuana keep telling themselves that their little Johnny is special & must be protected from reality at the expense of every other citizen in this country.

Wow! Great post!

Also these stupid cops go around to schools and use this propaganda program called DARE for the longest time(like they are daring them to do drugs get it so they can have future arrestes ) and pass around bags of pot and demonize it. They lump cannabis in with cocaine and hard drugs and lie. Later on kids try cannabis and realize they were lying about it and ask themselves are they lying about all the other stuff too. So they experiment with hard drugs to find out the hard way because of in proper education in the first place. Kids know drugs are bad at the age of 13, no need to pass bags around the class room of unmentionables and tempt there curiosity about hard drugs while lying about cannabis. The cops do this in hopes they will also nark out there parents for growing cannabis. Educate properly about cannabis and it's benfits for those that need it and to stay away from all the other stuff like pills,ect. That's all they need to know. Also they should be told it's for adults and for sick people who need it.Will they listen, perhaps so but I don't know if all of them will but at least they were told the truth.

 

[budtang]

It just means you have no game where you are and have to move to even have a chance in hell of selling any pot.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would I go to a more competitive market to sell weed if I couldn't do it in my own illegal state?

I'm going so I don't have to worry about cops. It's as simple as that. Did you think "6 plant limitations" would deter people from taking advantage of that aspect of your system? I'm going so I can get into situations with cops like my friends in those states have....pulling up to a stop light while driving and smoking a bowl. Only to have the cop who pulls up next to him look over and simply wave his finger "no."

That's why I'm going to one of those states. It has nothing to do with money. If I were focused on maximizing profits I would remain inside of an illegal state.

The whole "top shelf" thing is so funny. Everyone thinks THEIR weed is the best

Cali OG isn't my weed, though. I'm talking about weed that's not mine. Unlike you.

I'm sure this whole "top shelf" thing is hard for you to understand. You're surrounded by low quality weed. The best weed you have around you is mediocre. I can see why someone in that situation is convinced that mediocre weed is "top shelf." Mediocrity becomes exceptional in such a situation and it confuses you when someone like me comes along and points out the mediocrity of your product.

I wouldn't expect somebody who uses DWC buckets to understand that, though. Everything you see around you is good by your standards.

and that everyone else, even in a legal state, is gonna line up...passing up all the other weed out there...sold legally.... to buy THEIR top shelf. (it's those guys on craigslist and on the corner on Colfax, just ask em) What you don't see is that the market here isn't like where you are...where ANY weed will SELL.

I have a friend making good money in Colorado on craiglist selling weed that is mediocre in comparison to the Cali OG he smoke daily before relocating to that state. Those are his words...not mine. I don't see people moving to California and complaining about the quality of the weed. Why is that? You constantly see people complain about the Colorado market, though.

Either you're lying, or you don't know what you're talking about. Mediocre weed sells like crazy in Colorado. The state has brought in millions of dollars selling mediocre weed. That's literally all you have in the market up there. This myth that Colorado is a competitive weed market is laughable. If you approved residential grow operations in the market it would be a competitive market, but it's a market of commercial weed grown by hourly employees who simply don't give a fuck.

It's not a connoisseur's weed market.

I hope it works for ya, 'cus it's pretty obvious that iweed is all you have goin/the only plan you have in place for your future.

No, it isn't. Thanks for your concern, though.

I'm getting the impression from Colorado residents that it's their only profession, though. Hence, the reason you guys are so concerned with keeping guys like me out of your state. Wouldn't want us showing up and outperforming your hay producing, DWC set ups.

FOR YOU..just right..so you could actually play the game in the first place.

Why would I need voters to make money from weed? I need voters to pay taxes and help out your state. Which, is my only motivation for posting on these threads. I don't need them to make money, though. I make more money from the system that voters installed.


Like I said, you're only fucking over your own state and bragging about it.

 

[budtang]

I honestly believe something big is about to happen on a federal level. The federal government can't just sit here and not do anything about weed legalization while situations like Colorado and Washington are going on.

You can't just have this double standard in existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see the government pull the plug on the entire thing and completely legalize in all 50 states by 2015.

This stock analyst seems to be convinced that something is about to happen on that federal level and his market prediction in the past have been pretty accurate:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shock...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ1OF8x

Basically, this guy is saying that one of two thing will happen in 2015. Either, the Feds will start raiding and shutting down dispensaries (not likely with Congress' 6% approval rating), or they'll fully legalize in all 50 states. The Federal Government can't just sit here and allow this double standard to go on.





Colorado probably won't even be relevant in in the weed industry in 5 years. I think you locals can relax.

 

[budtang]

I honestly believe something big is about to happen on a federal level. The federal government can't just sit here and not do anything about weed legalization while situations like Colorado and Washington are going on. You can't just have this double standard in existence. I wouldn't be surprised to see the government pull the plug on the entire thing and completely legalize in all 50 states by 2015.

This stock analyst seems to be convinced that something is about to happen on the federal level and his market predictions in the past have been pretty accurate:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shock...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ1OF8x

Basically, this guy is saying that one of two things will happen in 2015. Either, the Feds will start raiding and shutting down dispensaries in Colorado (not likely with Congress' current 6% approval rating), or they'll fully legalize in all 50 states. The Federal Government can't just sit here and allow this double standard to go on for much longer.





Colorado probably won't even be relevant in in the weed industry in 5 years. I think you locals can relax.

 

[monsoon]

I've been growing for over 25 years, Jr. I've tried all of the approaches. Soil, Coco, DWC, DTW, NFT, aeroponics, Ebb/grow, UC....whatever was popular and folks were rockin at the time. So what? Yer badmouthing more long term growers than just me with such assinine, little boy statements, cumwad, and yer showing how little of an "expert" you are by badmouthing these systems and ignoring the ability of a lot of good growers on this and other site who use UC's and other methods to produce the POT YOU SMOKE. LOL.

Just because you can't grow anything but hay and can't keep the heat from finding yer closet doesn't mean everyone else is a dried up come stain on the bed like you and your "game. LOFL. Fuckin kids.

 

[monsoon]

I hope they do legalize all 50. The price of pot will tank.

And you'll be working at McDonald's, along with the rest of the youngers who made no other plans but "weed" and thought they were gonna retire by 30.

 

[WaittillIdie]

dc

 

[Bob Green]

I feel like a starving kid in Africa listening to a bunch of millionairs on a hunting safari bitch that they dont have billions.

Most of us out there just dont want people going to jail any more and dont give a fuck if some spoiled ass growers have to get a real job to free all those enslaved by the system. Bunch of selfish dickheads that would leave MILLIONS of Americans locked up so they dont have to adjust to a new lifestyle.

Some places in in the US will lock you up over a half gram for a week, and drain you on probation fees for years. People are getting 10-99 years for fucking brownies and ****s on here dont give a fuck.

If you can grow a top shelf product it will sell for a high price period! If big corps find a way to grow top shelf herb and put small dipshits out of business then good. You can get a job as a farmer working for them if your skills are that tight. But the fact that some would have countless lives and families ripped apart over a plant so they can make a proffit they dont deserve is a true crime.

Some people might as well be the cops/feds locking people up that you talk so much shit about. Lots of them are just feeding their family and want it legal too. They dont want to arrest people for weed its just part of the job. Cut the cartels balls off and make them go legit. Why are murdering gangs making billions and hippy fucktards are acting like all high end growing is out of love.

Stoners/growers that want it to remain illegal are WORSE then the cops in my eyes.

FREE THE FUCKING PEOPLE ALREADY!!! Vote to legalize for the better of your people!

"Vote no or else" reverse reefer madness BS. I wish I could bitch smack you through this screen!

 

[WaittillIdie]

dc

 

[Bob Green]

I just think "trafficers" should be normal truck drivers, "dealers" normal ass budtenders, and "drug maunfacturing" should be just good old farming.

 

[hush]

Bob, you are spot on, my friend. Try not to pay too much attention to the ridiculous level of sociopathy being displayed in this thread. Most of us have bowed out by now, because this thread is silly. It honestly is. Trust me when I say that the majority of people agree with your sentiments, and there's just this outspoken, nonsensical few who keep repeating the same garbage over and over again. This thread is not about legalization or prohibition... It's just a libertarian masturbation fest.

Just wanted to say thanks for chiming in.