If the ballot initiative wins:
Issue 3 expressly states that commercial cultivation of marijuana in Ohio will be limited to 10 separate properties, whose addresses have already been determined. And just who owns the land that will be granted exclusive rights to what is projected to be a billion dollar industry? The same investment groups, organized by James, that are financing the ResponsibleOhio campaign to legalize marijuana in the state....
ResponsibleOhio projects that there will be an estimated 300 employees per facility, which is astronomical when compared with Colorado commercial growers like Medicine Man, which operates one of the state’s largest cultivation centers—40,000 square feet—and needs only 32 employees to run it. James says that Ohio’s cultivation centers will be up to 300,000 square feet. The imagery of Smithsonian-size grow-houses and multibillion-dollar sales plays into the Big Cannabis narrative that marijuana prohibitionists (and now some legalizers) have rallied around....
No matter what happens, with recreational marijuana having already proved itself as an endeavor worthy of Big Business attention, it’s certain that we’re going to see large influxes of cash into future campaigns by investors looking for a stake in the coming green rush.
Promoting a business but only if it's small makes little sense. But is there something wrong with designating the 10 properties? If producing marijuana is to be legal, the state will have to control it, and limiting the production to 10 big places instead of allowing lots of little places to operate is perhaps a creditable idea about how to keep tabs on this business. Doesn't it make sense to want fewer bigger grow houses? I'm just asking questions. I don't have a policy position here.
Posts
84 comments:
No.
One reason to legalize is to reduce pointless law enforcement. This will lead to more as the vested 10 ooch on cops.
One reason is to make a cheaper safer product. Markets and competition not cronyism are the way to go.
Why must the state control it? This is a totemic attitude towards pot, but we need less of that thinking not more.
Pot users -- I am not one -- are not borderline misfits would need close supervision either. This whole accept it on sufferance and pen it in attitude is off-putting.
This is a dance of elephants that is useless. Marijuana should be legal but the crony capitalists will treat it like a hair braiding ,license.
I vaguely recall something last week, reading that Nick Lachey, the singer, was one of the people who owns the land in question that would benefit greatly.
I just wonder what they're going to do when the KKK comes and kills them all.
Didn't click the link 'til now -- Lachey is mentioned in it.
Ten people greased the right palms. Everyone else can go jump.
"Doesn't it make sense to want fewer bigger grow houses?"
Some people love to argue that you only need "x" number of grocery stores, or gas stations, or doctors or lawyers for that matter. Problem is, you can't predict what the right number is.
A good analogy is gambling casinos. The whiz-bangs get to decide how many, and where, and what size, and what games they have etc etc etc. Corruption (and worse) ensues.
Or think medallion taxis.
Then everyone is outraged (outraged, I say!) that it's so corrupt.
Legal grass will leave a lot of dead bodies in Mexico and points south. Cutting off an important industry will have implications as large and complex as creating it in the first place. Certain skill sets will have to find new outlets.
I note that no one questions the assumption that having one of these giant grow houses would be a license to print money. Too bad they can't find a bank that will accept a deposit of said money.
This may require some resolution.
Creating growing monopolies makes no sense for marihuana, corn, soy beans, apples, spinach, or any other agricultural product.
Stoney Capitalism
Is ResponsibleOhio in any way connected with the Clinton Global Initiative?
Why wouldn't we want ease of entry into the business, as we had with cars, computers and cellphones, allowing the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese to enter into the market and improve it?
I will be happy if it passes, as Ohio is only a day's drive for me, unlike the other quasi-legal states out west.
"Marijuana should be legal but the crony capitalists will treat it like a hair braiding ,license."
Yeah.
I agree with Abdul. State-created monopolies make sense for public utilities and railroads, but not for agricultural products. This is also true for alcohol, the distribution of which in many (most?) states is restricted to a limited number of state licensees that enjoy exclusive rights to brands. Retailers are not permitted to deal directly with producers.
Ah, ha. Ohio opts for Crony drug wholesalers. If whisky and beer cash slush funds are being replaced, at least the politician's family business monopolies are being continue.
I love it when Althouse asks the big, important questions about a significant policy issue. None of that petty stuff for her!
As per any merit in the question itself, I suppose it could be analogized to the way a distillery has to be (I presume) licensed in order to ensure it has the capacity for safe production. But it seems that with state-legalized weed people are less interested in selling adulterated or dangerous, misbranded crap in the first place.
I guess that just makes for yet another difference between the two drugs and the way they're looked upon at various steps of the chain.
R&B, not getting where you're coming from. I can't tell if you share the popular sentiment against Big Weed - it's obvious, isn't it, that RJR (whoever) et al are ready to take over in five minutes? I favor that, and yet I don't...however in neither case am I loving special deals. Are you?
Ann is handling it douchily, as is her wont, but unless it's all "who, whom" to you, then potential corruption in business and government has never been a source of disinterest to you, has it?
If anyone has the stomach to wade through the regs at issue, I wonder what proportion of the rules are for ensuring the non diversion of the marijuana, and how much to meeting standards of purity your strength or quality or hygiene or what have you.
Bottled in Bond, Kentucky Bourbon, double-rectified busthead, Champagne vs methode champenoise? Is the State getting that involved, or just letting the breeders and growers do their OG/Holy Grail/Sour Diesel thing?
Let a hundred flowers bloom...
Red meat: this being Ohio...follow the money.
Distillery licensing is primarily about collecting the federal liquor tax. It allows you to make bourbon and barrel age it for years in a bonded warehouse. You delay paying the tax until you remove it from bond. You put up the money for the bond, put up an additional guarantee and then purchase lots of insurance. It's very expensive. The required ATF record keeping is sacrosanct. Fuck it up and you’re in deep shit and you lose your bond. I suspect that once the feds recognize legal weed, they will go the same route. People will always grow their own weed, but it'll be small scale like a home brewer. Growing weed outdoors is easy but it gets stolen or eaten by deer. Growing weed indoors is more secure, but it’s a stinky messy process. Fertilizers, pesticides, mold, bugs, lights, fans, temperature, humidity. Anybody who has ever worked in a commercial green house knows it’s not a human friendly environment. Only a serious stoner would live in a house that smells like a skunk. Most people don’t have time, space or desire to grow their own weed.
Good God, pot monopoly crony capitalism. How far the hippies have fallen.
Government uber doobies.
Might as well keep it illegal. I'd rather deal with Joe Blow down the street.
If producing marijuana is to be legal, the state will have to control it, and limiting the production to 10 big places instead of allowing lots of little places to operate is perhaps a creditable idea
Not when you remember that it is called weed for a reason. It'll grow almost anywhere, easily.
This was the background plot for Justified. Dixie Mafia got behind the legalization movement while buying up the "prime" farms that would be allowed to grow weed.
It didn't end well for them.
Here's a policy position. I'm opposed to 9 and 10_year olds getting easier access to a drug that damages their cognitive ability. Study Colorado carefully and see why many are very concerned and distressed by the consequences of legalization.
This is not the stuff your boyfriend gave you to loosen up your inhibitions in the 60's. This is much worse.
"If producing [x] is to be legal, the state will have to control it, and limiting the production to 10 big places instead of allowing lots of little places to operate is perhaps a creditable idea about how to keep tabs on this business. Doesn't it make sense to want fewer bigger [companies]? I'm just asking questions."
Mussolini would be so proud!
Sometimes I can't tell if you're serious or just playing Socrates. Nice job, Perfesser!
"This is not the stuff your boyfriend gave you to loosen up your inhibitions in the 60's. This is much worse."
Two things:
1) There was plenty of good shit back then.
2) Even if true, it just meant people smoked more back then. People imbibe as much as they need to imbibe till they reach their heart's content. That's like saying, we should outlaw whiskey because it has more alcohol content than beer and wine. And, as everybody knows, nobody gets drunk on beer and wine.
How many tubes of toothpaste does Madison need this month? And where? What neighborhoods? Big box stores? Groceries? Convienence stores? The Govt cant get the right amount to the right stores for the cheapest price........ever. Why do communist country have such a hard time getting toilett paper to the people?
Make pot legal, and get the hell out of the way.
I predict if this model is adopted, Ohio will make prohibition in the 30's look like a church social.
It it qualitatively worse. It's ruining my nephew.
Thank God I got my kid thru high school without poisoning himself, and I don't have to hire employees anymore. As my moniker shows, You can pay the bill for the social services these stoners will require. Or is that too complicated?
In the first place, if Ohio wants to issue a limited number of franchises for legal growing of marijuana, it should put them up for bid, not pre-issue them to one company selected who-knows-how. If pot is going to be legalized (which I'm not entirely convinced is a good idea), why should it be any more regulated than alcohol?
"It it qualitatively worse. It's ruining my nephew."
I am truly sorry. I saw it happen a thousand times back then too. It's tragic.
I'm afraid there's no solution.
But I'm a pessimist. So there may be hope yet. But I don't think it's to be found in fascist systems of control.
Perhaps religion?
I saw some people get saved that way.
I've prayed for my son every day since before he was born. Religion's not the answer, Jesus is. He's the reason I stopped. I also pray for all the kids in town who are drinking and smoking themselves silly.
As for the bill for stoners, I'm more worried about the bill for retirees.
And I'm not necessarily talking about you; I'm talking about... everyone.
Including myself. We are leaving our children and grandchildren unpayable liabilities. No wonder they're getting stoned.
Apparently the real stoners now scorn anything grown in the wild. The standard is such that I mean who ever heard of mid grade hydroponic? Hydroponic was always the gold standard. Now there is good stuff and meh. If you were going stuff in your garden apparently you are a joke. My god, it could have seeds!
Nichevo, perhaps you're mistaking "real" stoners for rich stoners...
"Real" stoners aren't rich. If they were, it'd been legalized a long time ago.
ALE,
Public utilities, sure.
But public railroads? In case you haven't looked, it's the private RRs in the US that are viable, private businesses--only quasi-government Amtrak is a guaranteed loser.
Assume arguendo that legalization is good (I am libertarian domestically, but am morally certain that many lives will nevertheless be harmed by legalization), writing a government-supported cartel into the state constitution is a bad way to go. Mercantilism is better than feudalism, but still not as viable as free-market capitalism. A government-enforced cartel will end up being bad for consumers and for the state government. (See, for example, what the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has done to Pennsylvania politics, or likewise the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control board has done to Va.)
"""Nichevo said...
R&B, not getting where you're coming from. I can't tell if you share the popular sentiment against Big Weed - it's obvious, isn't it, that RJR (whoever) et al are ready to take over in five minutes? I favor that, and yet I don't...however in neither case am I loving special deals. Are you?
Ann is handling it douchily, as is her wont, but unless it's all "who, whom" to you, then potential corruption in business and government has never been a source of disinterest to you, has it?"""
Nichevo: well said!
Why don't you have a policy position on a very clear case of crony capitalism? Do you believe it is allowable for a private company to establish industry rules and write the regulations which benefit them alone? Bizarre that you can't see this, or that you have some ethical blind-spot when it comes to corrupt democrat party politics.
retired said...
Here's a policy position. I'm opposed to 9 and 10_year olds getting easier access to a drug that damages their cognitive ability. Study Colorado carefully and see why many are very concerned and distressed by the consequences of legalization.
This is not the stuff your boyfriend gave you to loosen up your inhibitions in the 60's. This is much worse.
11/2/15, 9:05 PM
Get off of my lawn!
If you described what government does in the present, most people who lived in the 30's would have trouble distinguishing it from how the mob was in their time.
"Achilles said...
If you described what government does in the present, most people who lived in the 30's would have trouble distinguishing it from how the mob was in their time."
That was true at the time as well.
It's the worst of both worlds--legalize a handful of cartels and leave the rest of the legal landscape the way it is. Only an Obama voter (like the plutocrats who stand to make a fortune off this legislation) could think this is a good idea.
"'It it qualitatively worse. It's ruining my nephew.'
"I am truly sorry. I saw it happen a thousand times back then too. It's tragic.
"I'm afraid there's no solution."
I'm sorry for the young man, but if it weren't legal pot, it would be illegal pot, or booze.
I graduated high school in 1973. The 70s was a time saturated with drugs, and many friends of mine in high school and college smoked pot. (I didn't really know anyone who went to harder drugs, except the occasional quaalude.) I did not smoke pot or drink. I didn't like the taste of alcohol, and my parents implored upon us not to use drugs. My twin and I were very well-behaved boys and we followed our parents' wishes. Another relative started smoking pot when he was 15 or so, and is still doing so today at nearly 60.
All of my friends who smoked pot--those I'm still in touch with--stopped of their own accord by their mid-20s. They all said they got tired of it. I think more adult pursuits and responsibilities also diverted their attention away from pot.
My point? It is not a foregone conclusion that legalizing pot will create a nation of zonked-out addicts.
We already have many alcoholics and addicts of legal (prescription) drugs, and we we not address these addiction problems with criminal sanctions but through medical and social intervention, which is more cost-effective, appropriate, and humane. So, at the very least, for those who may develop dependencies on pot, removing the criminal sanctions will save them from jail time and will leave them free to try to recover and move forward in life without the stigma of having criminal records, which can further fuck up their chances to recover a normal life.
As for the subject of this post, of course we are seeing someone try to immediately create a monopoly. Capitalism! Fuck Yeah!
What is really interesting is that on the same ballot there is a vote to amend the state constitution to prohibit people from using ballot initiatives to create monopolies. What if both issues pass?
- it's obvious, isn't it, that RJR (whoever) et al are ready to take over in five minutes?
This is not obvious. The potential medical liability is an unknowable risk which no profitable ongoing concern will comingle with other assets thus risking their loss. It's far more likely the early stages of pot growth will be along the lines of your local illegal dealer opening a Starbucks size shop selling legal pot and cheetoes. Some of these will coalesce into regional chains.
Robert Cook said...
As for the subject of this post, of course we are seeing someone try to immediately create a monopoly. Capitalism! Fuck Yeah!
It's always amusing to see Cook pretending the key element of his preferred economic organization is actually a feature of what he hates. Socialism doesn't allow competition of its businesses any more than government allows competition with itself.
Recall that Socialist Bernie thinks the benefit of socialism is that we cut down on wasteful competition, and yet here is Cook claiming a lack of competition under capitalism is a problem as if socialism isn't clearly worse according to this very standard.
retired said...
Study Colorado carefully and see why many are very concerned and distressed by the consequences of legalization.
Sound ominous. High-school SAT scores improving, then flat? Auto accident rates down? Yikes!
retired said...
It it qualitatively worse. It's ruining my nephew.
It's good to have a scapegoat, but maybe you could take him to another state so he could be arrested. That'll learn 'im.
"As for the subject of this post, of course we are seeing someone try to immediately create a monopoly. Capitalism! Fuck Yeah!"
They're using the power/force of government to attain a monopoly. You're not this dumb, are you?
Fen said...
This was the background plot for Justified. Dixie Mafia got behind the legalization movement while buying up the "prime" farms that would be allowed to grow weed.
"Hole-y plots, Batman!" I said "if Ava gets out of prison again I'm not watching anymore", but I did.
EMD said...
Cook: "As for the subject of this post, of course we are seeing someone try to immediately create a monopoly. Capitalism! Fuck Yeah!"
They're using the power/force of government to attain a monopoly. You're not this dumb, are you?
Why yes, yes he is.
But to socialists, it seems that the word "capitalism" means "using the government to screw people", and doesn't have anything to do with free markets - which they say shouldn't exist in the first place.
If producing marijuana is to be legal, the state will have to control it...
Shame, Althouse! You abandoned scholarly lawyer critical thinking for trial liar cheap logical fallacy tricks.
"They're using the power/force of government to attain a monopoly. You're not this dumb, are you?"
This is because government represents and works for those who pay them: Wall Street, the big banks, big corporations, etc. (Smaller governments at state and local level are similarly bought by smaller but still wealthy entities.)
Government has been bought by the rich fucks you guys worship as exemplars of the mythical "free market." This is how ALL monopolies come into being: companies buy up or take over other companies and government allows them to do so, or facilitates their doing so, as here. This is why corporations are the great evil: they usurp the people's power over government and assume it for themselves. You're not this dumb, are you?
This is like Russian capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union.
There shouldn't be a distinction between big and small. Small can become big and vice versa in a market based economy. This is just a legal monopoly or cartel. If approved, it will end badly one way or another. If approved, the battle just begins. Future legislation can change everything.
"But to socialists, it seems that the word "capitalism" means "using the government to screw people", and doesn't have anything to do with free markets - which they say shouldn't exist in the first place."
To those not entranced by the religion of capitalism, it is clear that capitalists use their power--which is to say, their money--to grow ever richer and more powerful, by whatever means available. That includes, but is not limited to, buying government influence.
(When capitalists extol the mythical "free market," they mean a market free of government regulation. They do not mean a market of free and equal competition between entities; that's why they create monopolies, to exterminate competition.)
"This is like Russian capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union."
That's redundant. Just call it capitalism.
Robert Cook said...
"This is like Russian capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union."
That's redundant. Just call it capitalism.
Sure, just as Cook's Socialism can be reduced to Venezuela.
Ever notice that while the loons grant themselves the ability to disavow certain aspects they never grant this to their opponents. In this case he's using monopoly circumstances to defame capitalism, but (1) very few industries in modern America are monopolies, and (2) the environment he describes is crony capitalism or corporatism - which is much closer to Socialism than it is to free markets.
If the state wanted to limit growing operations, especially as part of an experiment into partial legalization, that seems a reasonable bit of legislation. But when you go from allowing ten locations with a process to apply for one of the ten permits to predefining the ten winners, you've stepped from plausibly beneficial regulation to private-benefit legislation.
California had some initiatives like this, centered around Indian casinos. It's just as corrupt as it sounds, and I'd think there's a presumption, at least in the Ohio case, of unconstitutionality because it violates equal protection.
"Promoting a business but only if it's small makes little sense. But is there something wrong with designating the 10 properties? If producing marijuana is to be legal, the state will have to control it, and limiting the production to 10 big places instead of allowing lots of little places to operate is perhaps a creditable idea about how to keep tabs on this business."
And then, if there are only 10 legal places to distribute pot from, what do the cops do to the people who are not the legal manufacturers, but still sell pot. Like the Eric Garners who sell loosies.
They still will be involved in a drug war.
"... it is clear that capitalists use their power--which is to say, their money--to grow ever richer and more powerful, by whatever means available."
-- If words aren't going to mean things, just go full Orwell and call it doomnomics or something.
"Government has been bought by the rich fucks you guys worship as exemplars of the mythical "free market." This is how ALL monopolies come into being: companies buy up or take over other companies and government allows them to do so, or facilitates their doing so, as here. This is why corporations are the great evil: they usurp the people's power over government and assume it for themselves. You're not this dumb, are you?"
Your statement appears to indicate 'Government' is an active not part of the problem. Apparently 'Government' is helpless to withstand the evils of corporations. That would, or so it seems to me, to indicate that removing power from the government to grant these boons would be a good thing.
Also: Kings do not give tribute to their vassals. You can tell who the lord is by who bends on their knee and gives them tribute. Companies give tribute to the government, and the government uses their power to sometimes help their loyal vassals. If you cut out the government's ability, or at least, curtail their ability to, hand out favors, they wouldn't receive tribute any more.
Rick wrote:
Recall that Socialist Bernie thinks the benefit of socialism is that we cut down on wasteful competition, and yet here is Cook claiming a lack of competition under capitalism is a problem as if socialism isn't clearly worse according to this very standard.
LOL. Like when Sanders said we have too many deodorant companies. "“You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,”
not sure what excesses of deodorant companies have to do with people starving. Wouldn't more deodorant companies producing more products yield more jobs thus allowing more people to not starve?
"Like when Sanders said we have too many deodorant companies. 'You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country,'
not sure what excesses of deodorant companies have to do with people starving. Wouldn't more deodorant companies producing more products yield more jobs thus allowing more people to not starve?"
Of course, there aren't more deodorant companies, but the two or three tentacled multi-nationals producing deodorant under many names, so we can believe we have a choice, while still always buying from them.
Your statement appears to indicate 'Government' is an active not part of the problem. Apparently 'Government' is helpless to withstand the evils of corporations. That would, or so it seems to me, to indicate that removing power from the government to grant these boons would be a good thing.
Government isn't even trying to "...withstand the evils of corporations." Government is happily taking the money and doing the bidding of their patrons. Government--in a democracy or representative republic--is simply the means by which a society of people run their own affairs by proxy. If the people allow those we hire--or proxies--to take money from the till and do business with criminals, why would our proxies not, instead, take the money and ignore we, the people? Just as any wealthy celebrity who doesn't oversee the activities of his accountants/money managers can be stolen from--as has happened to many--if we do not assiduously watch what our proxies are up to, they're going to do what's most profitable for themselves.
We have been bamboozled. "Our" government is not ours; it is theirs, (the wealthy elites).
"Kings do not give tribute to their vassals. You can tell who the lord is by who bends on their knee and gives them tribute."
Yes, and our proxies in Washington bow and scrape to appease their corporate paymasters. If you think it is the other way around, you are looking through the wrong end of the looking glass.
"Companies give tribute to the government, and the government uses their power to sometimes help their loyal vassals."
What you call "tribute" is something much more plain: call it bribes, call it payment for doing as asked, it amounts to the same thing. The politicians rely on their corporate donors and the corporations and other wealthy donors expect the politicians to deliver what they've been paid to deliver. This is not "tribute."
"If you cut out the government's ability, or at least, curtail their ability to, hand out favors, they wouldn't receive tribute any more."
You mean, if we removed from office every politician who is accepting bribes in return for preferential treatment to the bribers--pay for play--we might be able to place in their stead those who really mean to represent we, the people, rather than aggrandize their own wealth and power at our expense.
It's a nice dream--and I dream of it, too--but I don't think it's going to happen. Those we hire as our proxies see themselves as our masters...and they are.
Robert Cook said...
"Our" government is not ours; it is theirs, (the wealthy elites).
Apparently he doesn't realize who controls the government under socialism.
Cook wrote:
Of course, there aren't more deodorant companies, but the two or three tentacled multi-nationals producing deodorant under many names, so we can believe we have a choice, while still always buying from them.
but even if we had less to choose from, how would that impact starvation levels?
"Apparently he doesn't realize who controls the government under socialism."
Doesn't that depend on where it is implemented?
And who says I support a wholly socialist system? Why can't we devise our own economic system that suits us, a mixed economy with elements of socialism and tightly regulated capitalism? Why are the failed models of regimes elsewhere assumed to be the only possible models for future development?
Cook #1
Robert Cook said...
Responding to: [This is like Russian capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union.]
That's redundant. Just call it capitalism.
Cook #2
Why are the failed models of regimes elsewhere assumed to be the only possible models for future development?
I think Cook #2 should ask this of Cook #1.
Then Cook #2 should explain why it's appropriate for him to misrepresent other systems and then whine that others don't take his evaluations seriously.
"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free!"
Rick, I can't understand what point you think you're making.
I can't understand what point you think you're making.
I know. But the point you're making is not the point you think you're making.
Wow. 10 connected big businesses draft and fund the campaign for "legalization" of giant grow operations. All competition will be snuffed out by the continued combined efforts of State and Federal law enforcement. Crony Capitalism doesn't get any corner than this.
Question: How do such large grow for profit operations fit within the Holder non-enforcement guidelines? My collection was "small" (and non- or minimally profitable) were part of those guidelines.
Fascism
"If producing marijuana is to be legal, the state will have to control it..."
Why? Why should the state have any control over it?
"Shame, Althouse! You abandoned scholarly lawyer critical thinking for trial liar cheap logical fallacy tricks."
Shall we play Name That Fallacy? I am going with "begging the question." If only it was written, " . . . the state will obviously have to control it . . ." there could have been a subtle appeal to authority wrapped inside. One can appreciate the honesty of using the term "control" instead of the oft-used fakery word "regulate" in contexts such as this, cause it's all about control.
Post a Comment