It ain’t taking off because is still quite tabu to smoke that stuff. You won’t really see that at a family party unlike alcohol. The main reason is because that shit affects children when you puff it out and stink it up for people that doesn’t want it.
One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
121–130 of 170 posts
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#122The other factor not talked about is that in general the prices seem to be going down due to a lot of supply (both on the retail/licensed market, and the grey/black market). About ten years ago, a really good pound (in bulk) could go for $3k-$4k to a dispensary. Now the high end seems to have fallen out and you're maybe lucky to get half of that. I think a lot of people ran their business plan numbers where they were…
>could go for $3k-$4k to a dispensary. Now the high end seems to have fallen out and you're maybe lucky to get half of that. For comparison, bulk price of tobacco is a few bucks a pound. Admittedly I am not an expert in marijuana vs tobacco cultivation, but I doubt it's 1,000 times more expensive. Ultimately, the problem with profiting in a legal marijuana industry is that people simply don't smoke that much pot. Say…
Consider that a lot of mass-produced flower is used for production of concentrates. The yield weight of cannabis extracts might be 10-20% of plant matter input.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
The City of San Diego is the second largest city in California and the eight largest in the United States. For the latest election cycle the City Council fundraising was in the low $100,000 — hardly “millions.” I think the total across all races in the entire county (school boards, ballot measures, multiple city councils, water districts, everything) was about $33 million for all candidates. SD County is so big that…
So at less than an programmer salary, what you're saying is that there's ample opportunity for enterprising software artists to take over and automate the whole thing.
Have to take a pay cut though because council members only get paid $75,000 currently though it’s set to rise significantly by 2020.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-san...
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.
On what grounds? It was already conclusively decided in Gonzales vs Raich.
2/3rds of the membership of the Supreme Court has changed since Gonzales vs. Raich. There might be more skepticism about applying Wickard here given that the majority of Americans now support legalization. It shouldn't matter in theory, but it it probably does to some extent. I could see RBG changing her vote from last time and possibly Souter as well, especially if the case could be distinguished from Wickard in such a way that doesn't call into question large swaths of the modern federal government.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#125Maybe this article overstated things and someone will clear it up in the comments but that was painful to read. I live in Vancouver and weed's been officially legal throughout the Canada for several weeks now. It's still relatively new but nothing noticeable has changed aside from fewer people discussing such a frivilous and previously mishandled issue. It's not perfect but far, far, far better than strict prohibitio…
tell me about it. I openly smoke marijuana in public places. Why? It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. I see uninformed parents scowling at me for blowing marijuana smoke away from them while they are smoking cigarettes infront of their kids. Anyways, if you see a guy smoking weed around Robson square, that's me.
> It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO.
Do you have a source to confirm that? I'd think it would be roughly similar: smoke of burning leaves.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
tell me about it. I openly smoke marijuana in public places. Why? It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. I see uninformed parents scowling at me for blowing marijuana smoke away from them while they are smoking cigarettes infront of their kids. Anyways, if you see a guy smoking weed around Robson square, that's me.
> It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. Do you have a source to confirm that? I'd think it would be roughly similar: smoke of burning leaves.
you get tar but when you light up a tobacco it has all sorts of chemicals. you are not just burning tobacco leaf, you are burning dozens of chemicals they add to it.
You can't even get high from second hand marijuana smoke outside.
Hotboxing your car however, will get you high. Certainly better than being in a car with a tobacco enthusiast.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#127It all comes down to local control of licensing. To even operate a 100% mobile business, you have to be licensed out of a specific city. This involves all the associated cronyism, NIMBYism, and the like which goes along with local politics, and grinds the whole system to a halt. We need to adopt a statewide system like Oregon or there will be no room for smaller distributors left and we will be stuck with monopolized…
I'm personally fine with local control, and despite the negative tone of this article, it all sounds pretty normal to me. I live in SF, where there are a variety of shops. The ones I walk by all seem clean, orderly, and well run. Certainly more so than some liquor stores I can think of. So I'm happy to have them as neighbors. That said, I understand why other cities would have been more reluctant to license. Not ever…
I feel like the problem with that idea is right there in the first sentence of the wikipedia article - should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. Who decides what level that is? It never seems to be very straightforward, and a lot of important things end up having consequences that go way beyond what the folks arguing for the most granular level of local control will admit (see - housing, transit, climate change).
Recreational pot sales is probably a pretty small issue in the scheme of things and will likely sort itself out eventually since there's money to be made. But the idea that local control is fundamentally a good thing seems pretty suspect to me based on how many examples there are of it going so badly.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#128Yet another thing the local, baby-boomer, middle aged home owning people bring us. Voting down all development. Banning cannabis shops. Prop 13. They vote in large percentages and have shaped the Bay area in a big way.
Nobody under the age of 58.5 can possibly have voted for Prop 13. Few below 70 would have had any incentive to.
Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry
#129Honest question: Why do newspapers, NPR, etc. often refer to pot possession / sales as being legal in California and some other states, when they're clearly illegal under federal law? There are numerous other behaviors that IIUC are illegal under U.S. federal law but are not proscribed by California law, including: aircraft hijacking, carjacking, credit card fraud, and possession of destructive devices such as missil…
Because California passed bills clearly delineating how, where, and in what quantities pot growing and selling can be done. The state issues licenses. In America, this is federalism at work. States can choose to do things that the federal government explicitly does not allow, and states can choose to not do things that the federal government explicitly tells it to do. When there is enough of a conflict, it gets resol…
States can choose to do things that the federal government explicitly does not allow