Biggest Supporters AGAINST prop 19. - New England Patriots Forums

mcgraw_wv · 11-09-2010, 07:52 AM

This is interesting and a good lesson on American policies and politics. I was just reading an article in TIME ( sorry no link ) which says the biggest financial backers for the campaign against prop 19 in California was....

The Medical Marijuana Growers of California... Odd huh? The reason, they already make a lot of money, and legalizing it, would bring in the large agriculture business and drive all of the Medical growers out of business.

I can't blame them for wanting to protect their business, but it just seems completely opposite of what you would think they would support.

The lesson, it's far more effective to use laws and government to protect profits than to rely on the free market. The free market would invite bigger more efficient businesses to sell and distribute pot, and the small medical growers do not want the competition.

PatriotsReign · 11-09-2010, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

This is interesting and a good lesson on American policies and politics. I was just reading an article in TIME ( sorry no link ) which says the biggest financial backers for the campaign against prop 19 in California was....

The Medical Marijuana Growers of California... Odd huh? The reason, they already make a lot of money, and legalizing it, would bring in the large agriculture business and drive all of the Medical growers out of business.

I can't blame them for wanting to protect their business, but it just seems completely opposite of what you would think they would support.

The lesson, it's far more effective to use laws and government to protect profits than to rely on the free market. The free market would invite bigger more efficient businesses to sell and distribute pot, and the small medical growers do not want the competition.

Large corporations don't belong in agriculture anyway. Look what they've done to our fruits and veggies! They don't care about the quality of the products they produce.

They have depleted all the nutrients in our soil and sell us "engineered" crap. In the end, it is better for consumers to buy agriculture from family and small farms.

Agriculture doesn't belong in corporate America and it definately should not show up on a ticker on Wall Street.

mcgraw_wv · 11-09-2010, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

Large corporations don't belong in agriculture anyway. Look what they've done to our fruits and veggies! They don't care about the quality of the products they produce.

They have depleted all the nutrients in our soil and sell us "engineered" crap. In the end, it is better for consumers to buy agriculture from family and small farms.

Agriculture doesn't belong in corporate America and it definately should not show up on a ticker on Wall Street.

So you support government intervention in protecting certain markets from competition?

I understand your comments, and agree with them, however what point are you making in reference to the OP?

PatriotsReign · 11-09-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

So you support government intervention in protecting certain markets from competition?

I understand your comments, and agree with them, however what point are you making in reference to the OP?

Regarding "livestock and agriculture in general", I feel the ONLY thing that requires protection is CONSUMERS. I don't care about free-market anything if it means consumers get poorer quality meats, vegetables or fruit.

So my point is, I support what happened in CA! If pot is to become legal, I'd like to see it protected via regulation so that the smaller companies will survive.

If you allow corp-America to take it over, they'll mess with marijuana to the point it becomes toxic.

The problem with this strategy is that even the small growers will become giant corp's at some point if it becomes legal.

At least with alcohol, corp's can't mess with it. Alcohol can't be engineered.

Holy Diver · 11-09-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgraw_wv

This is interesting and a good lesson on American policies and politics. I was just reading an article in TIME ( sorry no link ) which says the biggest financial backers for the campaign against prop 19 in California was....

The Medical Marijuana Growers of California... Odd huh? The reason, they already make a lot of money, and legalizing it, would bring in the large agriculture business and drive all of the Medical growers out of business.

I can't blame them for wanting to protect their business, but it just seems completely opposite of what you would think they would support.

The lesson, it's far more effective to use laws and government to protect profits than to rely on the free market. The free market would invite bigger more efficient businesses to sell and distribute pot, and the small medical growers do not want the competition.

Watching the Pats game on sunday with some of my dogs in SF sunday, one of my friends who has a medicinal card, and smokes pretty much everyday said to me while rolling a joint on the bar.. "I voted against prop 19"

If you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick a friend who would vote for it 100%, it would be this guy.

He then said to me, its basically legal now, and you have to go through a doctor and store to get it, its like an extra layer of protection to keep it out of kids hands.

I then said "Kids will still get it, it was completly illegal when we were kids, but we didn't have trouble finding some. PLUS they could tax it."

He didn't care...maybe he should smoke less pot.

the fact that over 2 million voters voted for its passage is pretty awesome.

But for now, can we PLEASE put to rest the notion that California is "liberal"? NO gay marriage, no pot, from such a 'liberal' core.

we simply have more registered democrats, they tend to vote conservative on social issues. even the pot smokers.

chicowalker · 11-09-2010, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holy Diver

Watching the Pats game on sunday with some of my dogs in SF sunday, one of my friends who has a medicinal card, and smokes pretty much everyday said to me while rolling a joint on the bar.. "I voted against prop 19"

If you held a gun to my head and asked me to pick a friend who would vote for it 100%, it would be this guy.

He then said to me, its basically legal now, and you have to go through a doctor and store to get it, its like an extra layer of protection to keep it out of kids hands.

I then said "Kids will still get it, it was completly illegal when we were kids, but we didn't have trouble finding some. PLUS they could tax it."

He didn't care...maybe he should smoke less pot.

the fact that over 2 million voters voted for its passage is pretty awesome.

But for now, can we PLEASE put to rest the notion that California is "liberal"? NO gay marriage, no pot, from such a 'liberal' core.

we simply have more registered democrats, they tend to vote conservative on social issues. even the pot smokers.

I thought he was going a different direction -- thought he'd be concerned that quality would go down.

The "do it for the kids" argument is stupid. Yes, right now, having to get a doctor's approval does represent an extra layer of protection, but I wonder why we don't do that with booze... And there would still be stores.

Bottom line is that legalization would put most dealers who still exist out of business, and it would be more comparable to booze in terms of access for teens. Weed is much easier to get if you're in high school, and that's largely because it's illegal so there's a huge black market that exists, and a lot of those people aren't real scrupulous in terms of getting ID...

---------

Re California and being liberal, saw something amusing from a friend yesterday -- that with the exception of a couple places, mainly resorts / 5-star hotels, in Orange County and San Diego, Meg Whitman would never step foot in any of the districts that voted for her. And that's almost certainly true.

PatriotsReign · 11-09-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicowalker

I thought he was going a different direction -- thought he'd be concerned that quality would go down.

The "do it for the kids" argument is stupid. Yes, right now, having to get a doctor's approval does represent an extra layer of protection, but I wonder why we don't do that with booze... And there would still be stores.

Bottom line is that legalization would put most dealers who still exist out of business, and it would be more comparable to booze in terms of access for teens. Weed is much easier to get if you're in high school, and that's largely because it's illegal so there's a huge black market that exists, and a lot of those people aren't real scrupulous in terms of getting ID...

---------

Re California and being liberal, saw something amusing from a friend yesterday -- that with the exception of a couple places, mainly resorts / 5-star hotels, in Orange County and San Diego, Meg Whitman would never step foot in any of the districts that voted for her. And that's almost certainly true.

You're absolutely right Chico. It would be much harder for kids to get pot if it was legal. Unless they steal it from mom & dad! But at least it would be in the hands of parents rather than dealers.

chicowalker · 11-09-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

You're absolutely right Chico. It would be much harder for kids to get pot if it was legal. Unless they steal it from mom & dad! But at least it would be in the hands of parents rather than dealers.

Which, of course, can happen with booze, too -- and does all the time.

But if (when) it does happen, at least they'd know it was quality stuff, not laced with anything (though I don't think that happens much) -- kind of like drinking Jack Daniels rather than something from a person's illegal still.