Let's Get Rich Off Pot

Off Topic
61

[quote]coolnatedawg wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Good lord did anyone see the news where they ran a story how 3 people died of weed overdoses within the first 2 days of legalization in Colorado? Sad thing is I’m sure my parents and grandparents were ignorant enough to believe it…[/quote]

Bullshit… I’ve tried it a few times years back. It can’t be done.

Rob[/quote]

When I was younger and somewhat dumber we used to get high as all hell at a friends place. One day his mom started coming into the shack we toked up in and scared the hell out of all of us so we bolted in our cars. That’s about the only time on weed I’ve ever been in a situation where I was really being dangerous- I kept thinking everything shiny on the side of the road was a cop and I’d try and steer my car as far away from it as possible.

In reality I was probably only moving over a few inches and only going 3mph but it made me realize that me, on weed, in a car, is a bad idea. The lady at McDonalds hooked me up with extra mcnuggets when I got there eventually though so it ended up being a good idea at the time.

Now, if I were to smoke, I’d probably just sink into my couch and kill some prostitutes in GTA.

I haven’t paid any attention to the legalizing of it. What’s the age limit for it?[/quote]

The quality of what’s been around in the last 10 years or less is outstanding compared to what was around 30 years ago. So nowadays… I’d think twice about driving after doing some of today’s potent KW.

Rob

62

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB
[/quote]

It certainly DOES give a shit about moral obligations. That is why it isn’t legal in Washington to advertise near schools or target minorities with advertisements.
[/quote]

You sound like an Idealist and I like that.

Honestly though, Do they give a shit about these obligations for moral reasons or for voting reasons? I’m sorry, I might be overly-pessimistic to your idealism, but I don’t trust politicians for shit.

Not because politicians are inherently bad people, but because the ‘system’ eventually bends them that way.

The only reason they are not advertising near schools or target minorities is because it would be a death sentence(public opinions), but believe you me, IF THERE WAS (enough)FINANCIAL MOTIVATION involved in fighting this specific point, of advertising near schools, I truly believe politics would’ve found a way to advertise near school zones as well.
[/quote]

I’m not an idealist, I’m a realist. And the reality is that NO politician wants to appear less-than morally bound to the people. They ALL want us to think that they have some sort of moral code that governs them. Many of them actually do. But even the ones that don’t try to maintain that appearance. So, by default if nothing else, they have a moral obligation, however ostensible it may be.

I don’t trust politicians to do anything but what they perceive to be in their best interests, and it is in NO politician’s best interests (provided that one of their interests is remaining/becoming an office-holding politician) to advocate the use of marijuana at the level needed for the legal market to become viable in the face of an extremely flexible black market.

63

The stupid and desperate is referring to the small-time-end-of-the-line drug-dealers that I deal with.

The guy who a matter of $5 extra bucks profit per bag, makes a HUGE difference.

If that guy, gets offered higher quality weed, for less or the same money, no matter the “severity of illegality”, he will jump on that 100%.

I can tell you that because I was in college not so long ago, and every single dumb-ass I met thinks and talks that way. He day-dreams of the day he finds a ‘better source’ or a ‘better connect’ so he can make $15 more bucks a day.

I know, because I get these type of inquiries daily from my “east coast buddies”. These guys could triple their profits based on me shipping them one ounce.

Luckily, I’m not 20/21/22 so these things do not appeal to me anymore. It definitely wouldve happened 2-3 years ago. I would’ve shipped it, because it’s easy and surprisingly low risk when it comes to law, but losing your investment is still a high probability.

64

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB
[/quote]

It certainly DOES give a shit about moral obligations. That is why it isn’t legal in Washington to advertise near schools or target minorities with advertisements.
[/quote]

You sound like an Idealist and I like that.

Honestly though, Do they give a shit about these obligations for moral reasons or for voting reasons? I’m sorry, I might be overly-pessimistic to your idealism, but I don’t trust politicians for shit.

Not because politicians are inherently bad people, but because the ‘system’ eventually bends them that way.

The only reason they are not advertising near schools or target minorities is because it would be a death sentence(public opinions), but believe you me, IF THERE WAS (enough)FINANCIAL MOTIVATION involved in fighting this specific point, of advertising near schools, I truly believe politics would’ve found a way to advertise near school zones as well.
[/quote]

You’re right. IF there was…

But to quote Bette Davis in “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”, you ARE in that chair Blanche. You ARE in that chair.

65

[quote]Claudan wrote:
The stupid and desperate is referring to the small-time-end-of-the-line drug-dealers that I deal with.

The guy who a matter of $5 extra bucks profit per bag, makes a HUGE difference.

If that guy, gets offered higher quality weed, for less or the same money, no matter the “severity of illegality”, he will jump on that 100%.

I can tell you that because I was in college not so long ago, and every single dumb-ass I met thinks and talks that way. He day-dreams of the day he finds a ‘better source’ or a ‘better connect’ so he can make $15 more bucks a day.

I know, because I get these type of inquiries daily from my “east coast buddies”. These guys could triple their profits based on me shipping them one ounce.

Luckily, I’m not 20/21/22 anymore so these things do not appeal to me anymore. [/quote]

The problem with this scenario in terms of the discussion is that people on the level you are talking about do NOT move the market at all. They are moved by the market. They will NEVER erode the black market’s viability, which is my original point. People under the age of 21 will not be able to legally purchase weed, so they will turn to the black market. And the black market will always feature prices that are FAR lower than what the people you describe can feature. Sure, there will be some who pay the higher price for the better quality.

But as you can see with literally ANY business with similarities to the potential weed market, those people won’t be factors in the overall supply and demand model of said marketplace. Like I mentioned earlier, it isn’t the microbrewphile who drives the booze market. It’s the degenerate drunkard buying massive quantities of a shitty product on a regular basis who does so. People under the age of 21 will be forced to remain in the black market for their weed, and the scenario you present is simply the least economically-viable way for them to get their hands on weed, just like it is the least economically-viable way for a dealer to make money.

All it takes is ONE dealer with a pretty good line on good indoor weed that was grown by some hippie in Trinity County to blow the sort of people you describe out of the water. If you can even approach the quality that is regularly available at a dispensary by growing it yourself, you’ll make the people you describe completely obsolete.

66

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB
[/quote]

It certainly DOES give a shit about moral obligations. That is why it isn’t legal in Washington to advertise near schools or target minorities with advertisements.
[/quote]

You sound like an Idealist and I like that.

Honestly though, Do they give a shit about these obligations for moral reasons or for voting reasons? I’m sorry, I might be overly-pessimistic to your idealism, but I don’t trust politicians for shit.

Not because politicians are inherently bad people, but because the ‘system’ eventually bends them that way.

The only reason they are not advertising near schools or target minorities is because it would be a death sentence(public opinions), but believe you me, IF THERE WAS (enough)FINANCIAL MOTIVATION involved in fighting this specific point, of advertising near schools, I truly believe politics would’ve found a way to advertise near school zones as well.
[/quote]

I’m not an idealist, I’m a realist. And the reality is that NO politician wants to appear less-than morally bound to the people. They ALL want us to think that they have some sort of moral code that governs them. Many of them actually do. But even the ones that don’t try to maintain that appearance. So, by default if nothing else, they have a moral obligation, however ostensible it may be.

I don’t trust politicians to do anything but what they perceive to be in their best interests, and it is in NO politician’s best interests (provided that one of their interests is remaining/becoming an office-holding politician) to advocate the use of marijuana at the level needed for the legal market to become viable in the face of an extremely flexible black market.[/quote]

English is my third language so sometimes I don’t comprehend things correctly, however,

now I see that a politicians ‘obligation’ specifically, and his motivation, are two very different things.

Yes, they do have a moral obligation. That is not why they do it. Thx.

67

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
All it takes is ONE dealer with a pretty good line on good indoor weed that was grown by some hippie in Trinity County to blow the sort of people you describe out of the water. If you can even approach the quality that is regularly available at a dispensary by growing it yourself, you’ll make the people you describe completely obsolete.[/quote]

mmm my point is starting to fall apart because I’m not concerned about the states where weed is legal to grow/purchase.

I’m thinking about the places where weed, grown or purchased, is still illegal. By the way, that’s still the majority of the country.

One hippie will NOT render the 50 states worth of drug dealers obsolete. If anything, that one hippie will empower them because he can now provide them with better quality weed, for cheaper, or the same price.

68

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:
I’d think twice about driving after doing some of today’s potent KW.

Rob[/quote]

What is KW?

Also, the shit people have now is 10x better than the shit I got just 10 years ago… So I can only imagine the difference from 30 year ago, lol.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

It should be about not kicking folks’ doors in in the middle of the night, not locking people up in jail cells, and not grinding them into dust in our oh so “fair” justice system.[/quote]

This. While I’m not about to sit here and sing a swan song for some kid who got caught, punished and then gets caught again. (I mean, really, I don’t care if you think the law is wrong, you fucked up 2 or more times and I stop feeling bad for you, it is weed ffs.) I also think destroying someone’s life for weed of all things is silly beyond belief.

69

I could see room in the market for both the swag and the premium. It’s like tobacco shops around here that have everything from Marlboro to top end cigars.

What it really requires is the undertaking of production great enough to drive the price down lower than the price to take the risk of bringing it in from over the border or producing it illegally domestically while maintaining room for profit for everyone involved in its distribution. Of course decriminalization also way reduces the risk involved for domestic growers.

Just as with tobacco, the money is made in mass, not the boutique.

70

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Good lord did anyone see the news where they ran a story how 3 people died of weed overdoses within the first 2 days of legalization in Colorado? Sad thing is I’m sure my parents and grandparents were ignorant enough to believe it…[/quote]

Bullshit… I’ve tried it a few times years back. It can’t be done.

Rob[/quote]
My point lol the media makes it out to be the drug if you can even call it that that is going to wreck the world…gtfo. Advil needs regulations before weed does

71

[quote]chobbs wrote:

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Good lord did anyone see the news where they ran a story how 3 people died of weed overdoses within the first 2 days of legalization in Colorado? Sad thing is I’m sure my parents and grandparents were ignorant enough to believe it…[/quote]

Bullshit… I’ve tried it a few times years back. It can’t be done.

Rob[/quote]
My point lol the media makes it out to be the drug if you can even call it that that is going to wreck the world…gtfo. Advil needs regulations before weed does [/quote]

Tylenol kills people.

They are just now admitting this.

It would take smoking 14lbs of weed in an hour to kill yourself.

Good luck with that.

As for the carcinogens…recent studies have shown it DECREASES the risk of lung cancer in rats.

72

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I could see room in the market for both the swag and the premium. It’s like tobacco shops around here that have everything from Marlboro to top end cigars.

What it really requires is the undertaking of production great enough to drive the price down lower than the price to take the risk of bringing it in from over the border or producing it illegally domestically while maintaining room for profit for everyone involved in its distribution. Of course decriminalization also way reduces the risk involved for domestic growers.

Just as with tobacco, the money is made in mass, not the boutique.

[/quote]

Here’s the thing, though. The legal market will depend on people buying legal weed to sustain itself, right? Well, given that the market will be driven by demand for weed on par with Budweiser and not the Pliny the Elders of the world, it won’t be sustainable at all. The reason is simple: literally anyone with half a brain in their head is capable of growing medium-quality weed. The cost of doing so is so fucking low compared to what legal dispensaries forced to jump through all sorts of regulatory and tax-related hoops will spend that the black market will essentially always be able to undercut the prices in the very segment of the market that the legal weed will need to dominate in order to remain viable.

On top of that, legalization will entail one of two possible scenarios:
a) it becomes legal to grow weed for personal consumption>>this would be the death knell for the legal market. It’s easy to grow and the ONLY deterrent to people who would like to grow but don’t is the legality factor. Allow people to grow it themselves, and they will NEVER pay premium prices for weed

b) it becomes legal only to buy it at designated locations>>this, too, would be counterproductive if we work under the assumption that a big benefit of legalization is the potential to save money on law enforcement. The resources allocated to fighting it now would simply be used to ensure that people aren’t growing illegally or are declaring the proper amount of income for taxes or whatever. That isn’t a far departure at all from the current situation.

Aside from all that, there is still the problem of discouraging people from entering the market for weed in the first place. What sort of successful business model mandates that the people who are invested in a particular product must turn around and discourage people from using said product?

73

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Aside from all that, there is still the problem of discouraging people from entering the market for weed in the first place. What sort of successful business model mandates that the people who are invested in a particular product must turn around and discourage people from using said product?[/quote]

Why would anyone do that?

Do we spend money to discourage people from drinking alcohol ever?

No?

Gee.

74

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Aside from all that, there is still the problem of discouraging people from entering the market for weed in the first place. What sort of successful business model mandates that the people who are invested in a particular product must turn around and discourage people from using said product?[/quote]

Why would anyone do that?

Do we spend money to discourage people from drinking alcohol ever?

No?

Gee.[/quote]

Just say “Use responsibly” like all the alcohol companies do.

75

That may be true about the profile of the typical smoker/potential grower, but the same thing could be said about tomatoes. Drop a couple seeds in the ground and you wil have more tomatoes than you can eat for the year. Yet there are endless square miles of commercial tomato growing operations to meet the demand for tomatoes in the US. Granted no self respecting Italian will be caught dead with a jar of Prego in the pantry, but not everybody is like that.

As for the discouragement- Same as distillers. We’ve all seen and laughed at the obligatory disclaimer at the end of the commercial- “Drink Responsibly!” Hahahaaha! Yeah… that has really caught on like wildfire.

edit: Aggv beat me to the responsible use thing.

76

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

On top of that, legalization will entail one of two possible scenarios:
a) it becomes legal to grow weed for personal consumption>>this would be the death knell for the legal market. It’s easy to grow and the ONLY deterrent to people who would like to grow but don’t is the legality factor. Allow people to grow it themselves, and they will NEVER pay premium prices for weed[/quote]

It takes a lot of money to grow these plants and a lot of effort. You seem to think all of third ward Houston will turn into a drive through green house.

I seriously doubt everyone is willing to spend a few extra hundred on a light bill either.

I don’t think you have been around that culture much…and I am guessing you see alcohol as some other entity when they should be treated the same.

77

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Aside from all that, there is still the problem of discouraging people from entering the market for weed in the first place. What sort of successful business model mandates that the people who are invested in a particular product must turn around and discourage people from using said product?[/quote]

Why would anyone do that?

Do we spend money to discourage people from drinking alcohol ever?

No?

Gee.[/quote]

There is a LOT of money spent discouraging people from drinking. It just doesn’t come in the form of massive public announcement campaigns. Besides, it evades the main crux of my point. Any successful business model in this sort of arena would include advertising geared toward attracting people to their product.

If the government is going to legalize weed with the (at least partial) motivation that tax revenue could help fix some fiscal messes, fine. But do you really see the government then turning around and essentially advertising that product? No, of course not. If anything, it will be quite the opposite. I could easily see the government legalizing weed and then try to hedge their bets by starting a large advertising campaign that at least serves to educate people about the effects of weed (which we actually know extremely little about). It wouldn’t be very different from the anti-drug campaigns of the 1980’s, only more ambiguous about whether we should be smoking weed or not. And just like with cigarettes and alcohol, there will be restrictions on how and where weed stores and distributors do their advertising.

If the entire legitimacy of the endeavor relies on luring people away from the black market and toward the legal market, this isn’t a good plan to do so.

78

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

There is a LOT of money spent discouraging people from drinking.[/quote]

Dude, I just choked…and spit up my Corona all over the keyboard.

[quote]
It just doesn’t come in the form of massive public announcement campaigns. Besides, it evades the main crux of my point. Any successful business model in this sort of arena would include advertising geared toward attracting people to their product. [/quote]

and?

[quote]

If the government is going to legalize weed with the (at least partial) motivation that tax revenue could help fix some fiscal messes, fine. But do you really see the government then turning around and essentially advertising that product? No, of course not.[/quote]

No, I see tons of small businesses advertising that product because as soon as you legalize it, it will open a huge market for other safer ways for it to entered into the system than smoking it. This is capitalism at its finest.

[quote]

If anything, it will be quite the opposite. I could easily see the government legalizing weed and then try to hedge their bets by starting a large advertising campaign that at least serves to educate people about the effects of weed (which we actually know extremely little about).[/quote]

Wow. Just turn on a rap song to find that out.

[quote]

It wouldn’t be very different from the anti-drug campaigns of the 1980’s, only more ambiguous about whether we should be smoking weed or not. And just like with cigarettes and alcohol, there will be restrictions on how and where weed stores and distributors do their advertising.

If the entire legitimacy of the endeavor relies on luring people away from the black market and toward the legal market, this isn’t a good plan to do so. [/quote]

Cigarettes kill.

Weed is actually showing to decrease the risk of cancer.

Legalizing it means every inventor and small business person with a vaporizer or edible intake provider will see money trees.

79

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
That may be true about the profile of the typical smoker/potential grower, but the same thing could be said about tomatoes. Drop a couple seeds in the ground and you wil have more tomatoes than you can eat for the year. Yet there are endless square miles of commercial tomato growing operations to meet the demand for tomatoes in the US. Granted no self respecting Italian will be caught dead with a jar of Prego in the pantry, but not everybody is like that.

As for the discouragement- Same as distillers. We’ve all seen and laughed at the obligatory disclaimer at the end of the commercial- “Drink Responsibly!” Hahahaaha! Yeah… that has really caught on like wildfire.

edit: Aggv beat me to the responsible use thing.
[/quote]

Not a good analogy, the whole tomato/weed thing. The opportunity cost of going to the store to buy some tomatoes is so inconsequential compared to what is saved by growing them yourselves, that there is literally no monetary incentive to grow your own.

Not so with weed. Legal dispensaries will be MUCH farther and fewer between than supermarkets. The amount of money saved is inconsequential regarding tomatoes. But with people who smoke weed on a habitual basis (90% of the market, according to the article linked earlier), there is a much larger amount of money to be saved by growing on your own.

The “Drink Responsibly” slogan is the tip of the iceberg. Alcohol companies cannot engage in nearly the same amount or type of advertising as other beverage companies can. There’s a loss of revenue right there. Do you expect things to be any different with legal weed? Where is the biggest market for alcohol and cigarettes? Down the street at the local high school. The same goes for weed. But you can’t advertise there.

Also, the states all pay quite a bit of money to fund things like anti-drinking and driving campaigns, alcohol treatment centers, addiction counseling, etc., etc. It’s been a few years since I did research into the actual numbers, but back in 2009 when I first started looking into these numbers in depth, California was spending somewhere around $10 billion a year on those sorts of things (this represents alcohol and tobacco products combined). That isn’t a drop in the bucket, even in a spend-happy state like California. I would expect other states to end up doing the same thing when it comes to weed.

I simply haven’t heard one single argument FOR the fiscal potential of marijuana that held up to any sort of scrutiny whatsoever. It sounds like a great idea on the surface, but even a cursory investigation into the matter reveals a much more complex, tenuous situation than what most realize. I haven’t even started in on the fact that we really don’t even know very much at all about the short-term or long-term effects weed has on the human body. We know some things, but we really don’t definitively know a whole helluva lot.

80

We are clear on the short-term effects of marijuana DB…

happy hungry sleepy.