Printable View
and its $200,000 for the license, and requires 2 million in insurance.
Can you say, "barrier to entry?"
I mean, why have an open, competitive market, when you can just hand big business a monopoly on MMJ production in exchange for a few hundred thousand dollars?
Oakland pot plan worries small growers - Spokesman.com - July 25, 2010
I agree sort of. You must look at this from the perspective of the big picture that the government must utilize. Their aim is to protect the consumer public. Frankly, I think they could make more money and require the same amount of insurance from a small farmer, by 'taxing' the product at the wholesale level.
From the farmer's side, this sucks. Maybe they could have licensed 'farmer's markets' on Saturdays?
giving a monopoly to a select 4 businesses doesn't help anyone except those 4 businesses.
How does limiting the industry in such a manner help the consumer?
I love living in a free society. You're free to do anything as long as you've got the bucks.
Keep Corporate Cannabis in California. :thumbsup: :D
I think most of us forsaw this coming. Even the tabacco companies are positioning themselves to move in and then the taxes become even more than they are on a pack of cigarettes.
Aye Capt'n:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by gypski
Actually my biggest concern is loss of species diversity because to remain profitable the big boys will have to concentrate on specific sub species and thus limit species that take months to mature over weeks.
Limitations of the almighty dollar.
I will keep my garden until they pry it from my dying hands.
And it will be one of the side effects once we finally get MJ legalized here. Big business will move in and try to corner the market, along with the legislature applying new tax laws. Not much you can do about it.