Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 226 posts

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#191

Post by jericsinger »

duskwuff wrote: post #139
will_brown wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as all marijuana trade is criminal under federal law You may be right because of the word trade ; however, the Federal government itself has authorized the growing (University of Mississippi) and interstate distribution of legal marijuana since 1976 through CIND. Not trying to split hairs, because the total patient list has probably always been under a dozen people, but it is still an interesting fact and one I onl…

I have to wonder, then: is the marijuana that's grown for research purposes representative of what's commonly grown and smoked today? Or is it essentially a "snapshot" of what was commonplace in 1976?

It's utterly pharmaceutical. The consumer market thinks of marijuana in terms of whole strains. The federal government, or more precisely, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which directs UM's program, thinks of marijuana in terms of constituent cannabinoids, with a special focus on THC and CBD. Their marijuana product is distributed in a homogenized form that's mixed to spec, so if you were to place an order from their menu[1], you'd ask for X marijuana cigarettes with "Medium THC / Low CBD." Of course, what NIDA considers high THC (5-10% by weight) doesn't compare all that well with today's products in the legal markets. In Colorado, 16-20% THC plant material is pretty common.

[1] https://www.drugabuse.gov/researchers/research-resources/nid...

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#192

Post by jericsinger »

jonlucc wrote: post #104
will_brown wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as all marijuana trade is criminal under federal law You may be right because of the word trade ; however, the Federal government itself has authorized the growing (University of Mississippi) and interstate distribution of legal marijuana since 1976 through CIND. Not trying to split hairs, because the total patient list has probably always been under a dozen people, but it is still an interesting fact and one I onl…

It was my understanding that the farm at University of Mississippi also provided the majority of the marijuana products for laboratory testing in the US.

You're correct. And the ordering guidelines are...extensive. https://www.drugabuse.gov/ordering-guidelines-marijuana-mari...

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#193

Post by jericsinger »

laxatives wrote: post #105
kbenson wrote: post #2

This makes sense. As a big player in enterprise, Microsoft is recognizing that there's a new industry that's vastly under served.

Microsoft might be the first to publicly announce it, but I don't think they are the only blue chip company aware of the industry. I've heard Phillip-Morris has been quietly buying out a lot of farms, anticipating federal legalization in the near future, especially since tobacco usage in the US is plummeting.

This is not true. It's possible, perhaps probable, that Phillip-Morris employees have invested personally in the industry, but all retail states so far have strict domesticity requirements that no national corporation could satisfy. Colorado's even contemplating a law that forbids publicly traded companies from owning stakes in a licensed entity. But even if this weren't the case, it would make zero business sense for a heavily regulated, multi-billion dollar corporation to invest resources in marijuana right now. The revenue opportunity wouldn't register on their income statement, and would never come close to justifying the additional scrutiny they'd surely receive from regulators. The reasonable strategy for them is to wait until marijuana receives federal blessing and then acquire the best companies or teams available, or try to launch new products backed by massive marketing spend.

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#194

Post by mc32 »

jericsinger wrote: post #189
mc32 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cumbersome, but cam you imagine the benefits to health, if expanded to food production, when an e.coli etc. outbreak happens or mad cow, etc. Trace back the farm and know exactly which lots to pull.

This is called traceability, and it's a fundamental aspect of food quality and good manufacturing practice (GMP) throughout the food industry. The devil is in the documenting.

Understood. But as it stands now the CDC has a tough time tracing origins with certainty quickly. If they implemented something commensurate it would be a great help to food safety (and reduction of food waste by not having to overreact and dump perfectly healthy/edible foodstuffs).

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#195

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

MikeHolman wrote: post #169
will_brown wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as all marijuana trade is criminal under federal law You may be right because of the word trade ; however, the Federal government itself has authorized the growing (University of Mississippi) and interstate distribution of legal marijuana since 1976 through CIND. Not trying to split hairs, because the total patient list has probably always been under a dozen people, but it is still an interesting fact and one I onl…

360 joints per month? That's an absolutely insane amount of marijuana. Even if marijuana isn't inherently unhealthy, I have to imagine it can't be healthy to put that much smoke into your lungs.

Why even bother with that? Judging from jericsinger comment, if it is so precise, why not just create a pill or something?

Why bother with exposing yourself to breathing problems or lung cancer. And with smoking being banned in more and more places, it can't be easy to administer.

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#197

Post by jericsinger »

chris11 wrote: post #45
mikestew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRS refuses to interact with marijuana businesses That's not even remotely true, as even 30 years ago the IRS happily took my money, and did so without telling anyone else where the money came from. I mean, maybe it's changed since, but when it comes to "IRS won't take my money", ima gonna have to pull the "citation needed" card.

Are you saying that you made money selling drugs, told the IRS that the money was made illegally and nothing happened? I've heard that the IRS definitely focuses on collecting tax money and not how it was made, but I thought that people technically never admitted to anything when declaring illegal income sources. It looks like the applicable part on a 1040 would be line 21, which just asks for "other sources of incom…

Not quite. What would happen is that people would get rung up on drug trafficking charges and then the IRS would pile on by taxing the undeclared illegal income. In the late 70s/early 80s, a case[1] made its way through the tax courts wherein a petitioner, a convicted drug dealer facing a jeopardy assessment from the IRS, filed a tax return for the prior year in which he declared income calculated net of COGS and other misc business expenses. The IRS disallowed these deductions, which if upheld meant that the petitioner would owe tax on his entire gross income. The petitioner sued and won, which established a precedent that didn't quite gibe with the political climate of the day. In response, the Senate Finance Committee promulgated a code amendment generally referred to as 280E[2], which prohibits those engaged in illegal activities from deducting ordinary and reasonable business expenses when reporting their net income to the IRS. Only COGS can be deducted, which for dispensaries and other non-manufacturing license holders, can result in an effective tax rate of 70% or more. In fact, it's quite easy to lose money and still owe taxes in the industry if you let G&A run away from you.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=702348433062253... [2] https://newrevenue.org/2013/03/13/marijuana-tax-code-section...

Re: Microsoft is the first big company to say it's serving the legal marijuana trade

#198

Post by jericsinger »

mc32 wrote: post #194
jericsinger wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called traceability, and it's a fundamental aspect of food quality and good manufacturing practice (GMP) throughout the food industry. The devil is in the documenting.

Understood. But as it stands now the CDC has a tough time tracing origins with certainty quickly. If they implemented something commensurate it would be a great help to food safety (and reduction of food waste by not having to overreact and dump perfectly healthy/edible foodstuffs).

I promise you, everyone is trying their best. But the food and ingredient supply chain is extremely complex and doesn't lend itself to strict structure. Tracking an ingredient through multiple vendors in multiple countries while it changes form from raw material to component ingredient to sub-product to product requires a massive effort, care, and judgment. And it's definitely a chain that's only as good as its weakest link, so one small mistake early in the chain can void all subsequent efforts, no matter how diligent. My point is, it's really hard to do well, and nigh impossible to do perfectly.
Post reply on HN