-
ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
- Status
JohnKimble
Member
I was thinking, strangly the police act as a barrier from monopolization in cannabis, its an equalizer to keep anyone from getting too greedy. Maybe if this could be expanded to all types of business, the economy would be a lot better off if the gov knocked the pegs off any business getting too greedy to allow room for other people to get into business. 
Absolutely correct. My old brain sometimes slips a cog when I'm typing.
From what I read, this hasn't been working very well in Mexico, which apparently is still a major part of the black market, the dominant majority in some parts of the US. Sinaloa cartel has been gaining ground on everyone.
Prices aren't really that high-
https://www.coloradopotguide.com/co...es-in-denver-and-colorado-spring-2015-update/
It's more in the tourist areas. Everything is. They come here to get rid of money they don't want, anyway, always have, & we've always been happy to oblige.
Current pricing is unsustainable. It's a bubble of sorts that encourages a lot of shoddy practices because everybody knows it can't last. We'll experience a boom/bust cycle like with uranium mining & shale oil extraction. Lots of "entrepreneurs" angling to fleece investors & others who take a serious long term perspective. This is a tiny market with only 5.4M residents, more of a proving ground for bigger ideas than anything else.
Successful practitioners will offer turnkey systems & expertise to other states as they legalize with the state of Colorado essentially vouching for their integrity.
It's a whole new world, guys. It'll be even more different when cannabis cultivation gets to move back outdoors where it really belongs. Anybody who wants to be part of the future cannabiz needs to understand all that & be prepared to up their game one way or another or lose at it.
You'll note though that it is no longer profitable for Mexican cartels to produce cannabis because of the up production and self sustaining nature of US States. The DEA are also claiming that the cartels are now importing US cannabis into Mexico --- see links. Basically legalization is already changing the face of the market and prices are going down.
https://news.vice.com/article/legal-pot-in-the-us-is-crippling-mexican-cartels
http://www.businessinsider.co.id/de...eed-into-mexico-to-sell-2014-12/#.VclITbUag_Y
I wouldn't doubt there's some leakage out of the legal states, depending on how tight their system is. Into other states - that's happening - and evidently into other countries, anywhere there's a market. Even if there are Mexican growers who can produce really superb weed, there's bound to be at least a small market for stuff in bona fide Colorado packaging, but that may not be the clearest sign of where the market's going as a whole.
It would be interesting to find out what the cartels' stand is on Mexican legalization, probably not too supportive would be my guess.
It would be interesting to find out what the cartels' stand is on Mexican legalization, probably not too supportive would be my guess.
I hate to say it, but those links are conspiracy theory crap.
We have the word of a cartel lawyer under heavy indictments in one & raw speculation from a DEA mouthpiece in the other wrapped around some pretty scarce facts.
Colorado legalization is a tiny part of the total market- we only number 5.4M people. This is not a major blow to their distribution network at all. And I'm sure that the cartels will steal American cannabis when they can & that they also set up grow operations in this country. I seriously doubt that they'd bother to smuggle it into Mexico when they can probably sell it here for more.
The cartels are turning to meth & heroin with results a lot like the cocaine plague of the 80's when Colombians switched products. When people really want to get high, they'll use what they can get. Cannabis availability is apparently dropping in areas that traditionally consume brick weed but there's plenty of other stuff to take its place.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...fe44ce-8532-11e4-abcf-5a3d7b3b20b8_story.html
Once you're strung out on that shit, pot smoking loses its lustre.
Must admit that I am always suspect re DEA info but I have seen the impact on the BC market which has been huge in terms of the price of lbs. So while always being wary of press this press is also indicative of Canada which has traditionally supplied a lot to the US market - a market that is now sustaining itself in a more tolerant legal framework. Logic than says a similar thing is occurring in Mexico.
Safe to say that those who make massive sums of money from prohibition are unlikely to support policy that puts an end to their business plan.
Ohio Marijuana Proposal Echoes Cautionary Tale Of Margarine Prohibition
Margarine prohibition ended in Ohio via the ballot box in 1949. How it happened sheds some light on the attempts to repeal marijuana prohibition this year.
Oleomargarine, as it was known at the dawn of the 20th century, was invented in France as a result of a prize offered for the invention of a cheap substitute for butter. The invention spread quickly to the United States.
The stuff was white and had the appearance of lard - not surprising, since it was originally made from beef fat and vegetable oils.
Many people found the appearance unappetizing - imagine spreading warm, fresh-baked bread with lard - so manufacturers began to use yellow food dye to make margarine look more like butter.
They succeeded, causing alarm among Wisconsin dairy farmers who correctly concluded that a tasty, less expensive alternative to their butter would create a drop in sales and cut into their income. Threatened by the competition, they won passage of new laws banning the sale of yellow oleomargarine.
In 1890, Ohio enacted its own prohibition on yellow oleomargarine. Plain white oleo was legal – only the kinds that looked like butter were against the law.
White oleo could be sold with yellow dye packets that could be mixed in at home. The additional labor, at a time before power mixers and food processors, was not well received in Ohio's kitchens. The end result was frequently a swirled effect, yellow and white. At least it didn't look like rendered pig fat. (That's what lard is, of course.)
The matter was challenged in court as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1903 held that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states, only the federal government.
So, aggrieved Ohioans turned to their legislature, seeking relief. Year after long year, they were whipped by the powerful dairy lobby - a potent political force at a time when every county had at least one representative in the House, no matter how small its population.
The political churn made Ohioans burn with passion - they yearned to keep more of what they earned by purchasing cheaper butter substitute. Finally, they turned to the initiative process, collected petition signatures, and placed the issue on the 1949 November ballot, ending prohibition against yellow oleo once and for all.
Today, the self-proclaimed ResponsibleOhio is seeking an end to marijuana prohibition through the initiative process – but with a twist. If approved by voters, it would write into the Ohio Constitution the location of ten farms that would be allowed to grow marijuana, exclusively.
A business plan shouldn't be written into the constitution.
Even if you're for ending prohibition - of oleo or marijuana - writing into the constitution an exclusive license to make the newly legalized product is a bad idea. It wasn't needed for oleo legalization, and it's not needed for marijuana legalization either.
A legalized, properly licensed market should be available to all comers, not just the few with the money to enshrine into the Ohio Constitution a monopoly for themselves.
Oleo prohibition ended at the hands of the voters - and without the creation of a cartel of rich guys to control the market. If it is the judgment of the voters of Ohio that marijuana prohibition should end, the ResponsibleOhio amendment is the wrong way to go about it.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/08/cautionary_tale_on_ohio_mariju.html
Margarine prohibition ended in Ohio via the ballot box in 1949. How it happened sheds some light on the attempts to repeal marijuana prohibition this year.
Oleomargarine, as it was known at the dawn of the 20th century, was invented in France as a result of a prize offered for the invention of a cheap substitute for butter. The invention spread quickly to the United States.
The stuff was white and had the appearance of lard - not surprising, since it was originally made from beef fat and vegetable oils.
Many people found the appearance unappetizing - imagine spreading warm, fresh-baked bread with lard - so manufacturers began to use yellow food dye to make margarine look more like butter.
They succeeded, causing alarm among Wisconsin dairy farmers who correctly concluded that a tasty, less expensive alternative to their butter would create a drop in sales and cut into their income. Threatened by the competition, they won passage of new laws banning the sale of yellow oleomargarine.
In 1890, Ohio enacted its own prohibition on yellow oleomargarine. Plain white oleo was legal – only the kinds that looked like butter were against the law.
White oleo could be sold with yellow dye packets that could be mixed in at home. The additional labor, at a time before power mixers and food processors, was not well received in Ohio's kitchens. The end result was frequently a swirled effect, yellow and white. At least it didn't look like rendered pig fat. (That's what lard is, of course.)
The matter was challenged in court as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court in 1903 held that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states, only the federal government.
So, aggrieved Ohioans turned to their legislature, seeking relief. Year after long year, they were whipped by the powerful dairy lobby - a potent political force at a time when every county had at least one representative in the House, no matter how small its population.
The political churn made Ohioans burn with passion - they yearned to keep more of what they earned by purchasing cheaper butter substitute. Finally, they turned to the initiative process, collected petition signatures, and placed the issue on the 1949 November ballot, ending prohibition against yellow oleo once and for all.
Today, the self-proclaimed ResponsibleOhio is seeking an end to marijuana prohibition through the initiative process – but with a twist. If approved by voters, it would write into the Ohio Constitution the location of ten farms that would be allowed to grow marijuana, exclusively.
A business plan shouldn't be written into the constitution.
Even if you're for ending prohibition - of oleo or marijuana - writing into the constitution an exclusive license to make the newly legalized product is a bad idea. It wasn't needed for oleo legalization, and it's not needed for marijuana legalization either.
A legalized, properly licensed market should be available to all comers, not just the few with the money to enshrine into the Ohio Constitution a monopoly for themselves.
Oleo prohibition ended at the hands of the voters - and without the creation of a cartel of rich guys to control the market. If it is the judgment of the voters of Ohio that marijuana prohibition should end, the ResponsibleOhio amendment is the wrong way to go about it.
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/08/cautionary_tale_on_ohio_mariju.html
S
SooperSmurph
If anyone in all honesty wants the majority of cannabis to be produced like corn in this country... I feel sorry for them, and for the plants they're abusing.
I will never smoke Marlboro cornrow weed the way the large landowner posters seem to want us to.
Sometimes it's fun to quote someone and then change the quoted text, like "fixed it for ya!" Not sure the above fits that pattern. You can at least highlight something you've changed - different color text or something - so it's clear what you're up to.
Who are the large landowner posters?
Who are the large landowner posters?
S
SooperSmurph
There are two main types of cannabis users who want total wild west legalization with large scale virtually uncontrolled outdoor growing.
Ones who want their cheap weed as cheap as possible, and don't mind buying it in cigarette packs at the gas station, and may in fact prefer that.
And the ones who have the land or financial means to grow the bales of low grade cannabis that will be made into those Marlboro greens.
A third, smaller group, has already made their money on the industry, and doesn't care what happens from here forwards.
And people wonder why the quality of cannabis available at most commercial dispensaries is actually going down, lol.
Ones who want their cheap weed as cheap as possible, and don't mind buying it in cigarette packs at the gas station, and may in fact prefer that.
And the ones who have the land or financial means to grow the bales of low grade cannabis that will be made into those Marlboro greens.
A third, smaller group, has already made their money on the industry, and doesn't care what happens from here forwards.
And people wonder why the quality of cannabis available at most commercial dispensaries is actually going down, lol.
But Stanky Balls you said you'd vote yes to legalization that allowed home grows http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/02/17/marijuana-proposal-allow-home-growers/23569555/
Or are you now saying that you'd vote no because you were not allowed to profit from your home grow? See here's the problem I see in the nay sayers arguments - far too many inconsistencies to the known facts.
Few points --- firstly where limited numbers of plants are allowed to be home grown the rules of capitalism will apply. I.e. if the commercial stuff is low quality compared to what can be produced by yourself then why purchase the commercial stuff? What incentive is there?
Secondly, some of the best stuff I have produced has been in green houses under light dep and supp lighting - high quality is not limited to under lights growing. Thus commercial producers will need to compete with the home grown market re quality which negates your arguments which stem from comparison to low grade shite from Mexico or bush produced locally and not comparison to commercially, professionally produced high grade cannabis grown in environmentally controlled green houses.
Thirdly, as Sam has pointed out consumers pretty much want one thing --- potency which can easily be produced from even low grade weed using the right production technologies.
FYI,
All hashish is produced like corn, large fields, fully seeded, and used to dry sift resin that can be great if the farmers goal was quality over quantity. They do not smoke the weed.
Some readers may think there are two main types that want virtually no legal Cannabis grown, ones that want to continue to sell the herb they grow for $2,000+ a pound and do not want market competition.
And those that have made large investments in indoor equipment that will become valueless as their weed when faced with real competition.
To assume that all indoor under lights Cannabis is somehow superior to organic outdoor plants or resin is absurd. I have seen plenty of low grade mersh from indoors under lights with chem fertilizers and even insecticides and/or fungicides.
I have seen outdoor grown by the ton organically that was as good or better as any under lights. And then a greenhouse without lights or heat can be run very cheaply and give the best of both worlds. Then make dry sift resin out of the herb grown outdoors, maybe just maybe the resin by the gram will be better then the indoor grown herb? It is fast and easy to extract resin from whole dry plants, zero manicuring. Even a simple first sift will yield resin that is at least twice the THC level as the manicured herb would be.
But you know this....
-SamS
All hashish is produced like corn, large fields, fully seeded, and used to dry sift resin that can be great if the farmers goal was quality over quantity. They do not smoke the weed.
Some readers may think there are two main types that want virtually no legal Cannabis grown, ones that want to continue to sell the herb they grow for $2,000+ a pound and do not want market competition.
And those that have made large investments in indoor equipment that will become valueless as their weed when faced with real competition.
To assume that all indoor under lights Cannabis is somehow superior to organic outdoor plants or resin is absurd. I have seen plenty of low grade mersh from indoors under lights with chem fertilizers and even insecticides and/or fungicides.
I have seen outdoor grown by the ton organically that was as good or better as any under lights. And then a greenhouse without lights or heat can be run very cheaply and give the best of both worlds. Then make dry sift resin out of the herb grown outdoors, maybe just maybe the resin by the gram will be better then the indoor grown herb? It is fast and easy to extract resin from whole dry plants, zero manicuring. Even a simple first sift will yield resin that is at least twice the THC level as the manicured herb would be.
But you know this....
-SamS
how does that stuff compare to the hash from guys who are winning cups now over here in cali / usa
Ditto with Sam albeit I'd rather med were produced hydroponically in well controlled indoor environments (e.g. greenhouses) where low HM containing base ferts are used among other cultural practices to ensure the cleanest medicine possible for immune suppressed patients - med standards for medicine. As for Rec - well I'll leave that one with the crowd. Convincing organic enthusiasts that organic hype is largely bollocks is pointless - much like telling a Christian that their faith is based on a bunch of very suspect tales. But absolutely, def extremely high quality cannabis can be produced outdoors by those who know what they are doing. In fact, I'd love to see under lights growing completely eradicated due to the massive carbon footprint this method leaves behind. Anyone who promotes under light growing where there is a far more eco friendly and viable alternative (because growers aren't forced indoors to hide their crops from authorities) needs to be seriously questioned when they use eco unfriendly companies (e.g. Monsanto) to sustain their argument.
- Status
