Pot Farm Update: Election Day! *fingers crossed*

[El Barto]

How many of your oligopoly examples are on the list of most despised companies in America? Not the best point to make your case.

In any case I would have called it a government mandated cartel rather than a monopoly.

If you're going to ask people to just assume that a multibillion dollar industry run by 10 companies won't have undue influence over the regulation of competition in their industry, you're asking people to be naive (and ignore most of the companies in your exemplary oligopoly list).

And for the record, the first I heard about the thing was from the sources you posted and from the bill itself, and I immediately came to many of the conclusions you're here blasting as fucking idiotic.

[Calvin6s]

.

[cramx3]

How many of your oligopoly examples are on the list of most despised companies in America? Not the best point to make your case.

As I was reading the response, this immediately popped in my mind.  Not really good to relate yourself to these companies, I get your overall point on this part, but you would never want to say you are like the companies on that list, that alone will turn people off.

Also, that is a huge loss and I feel bad for you.  Im not at all against the idea of making an investment (your 2 million) and having that go to something that can make a nice return for you, I read a lot of spin on that about this issue.  If there is a risk, there should be a reward, I am cool with that. 

I often wonder if this bill was just too much at once, legalize medical, legalize recreational, create businesses.... maybe just getting it legalized for medical first and then some of those ignorant politicians can actually see its not only used by people trying to get high and then there is some compassion if you see it first hand?  I dont know, just throwing ideas out.  I really do feel bad for you and your loss and I am totally on your side for legalization.

[Stadler]

How was this not a monopoly?   If there is only certain specified land that can be farmed, and if one entity owns ALL that land, that is, by definition, a monopoly.   

What am I missing?  (and if it's in the thread previously, so be it, but I'm not going back and re-reading the entire thing).  All I know is that this was not a minor story here in CT (I have my suspicions why) and in EVERY ARTICLE, the "m" word was used, by journalsts, to describe the endeavor.  That's not ALL  "bad PR".

I won't go into all the reasons your post is full of holes. Ah, screw it. Sure I will.

First of all, one company wouldn't have owned all the land to be farmed. That you think so speaks to the fact that you have no idea about anything related to this issue. There were 10 separate, distinct, incorporated business entities. Each operating independently and competitively of each other.

Second, and most importantly, because some fucking journalist in CT writes that it was a monopoly must make it so then, right?
Gimme a break. 

Dude, I get you're a moderator here, but chillax.   This is about ideas.  If your ideas are right, then there's no need for the ad hominem.   I asked - as did others - a legitimate question, and if your scheme is on the up-and-up, the facts will suffice.   I'm not calling you out as "WRONG", I'm saying that almost 100% of the info that is out there doesn't jive with what you're saying, and I'm respectfully asking for counterpoint.

I have stayed away from this thread for the most part because it's still too raw really for me to talk about. Well, until now I guess. Despite investing (and losing by and large) roughly two million dollars, I have watched this entire process play out in a McCarthyism way at its finest.

[Bunch of bilious ranting cut for space.]

I apologize if I've pissed anyone off. This is a very sensitive subject for me. And I don't have much tolerance for spin and rhetoric. I haven't given up hope on this. But this will probably be the last response I have to this issue. There really isn't anything else I have to say. People will have their own opinions on the matter, and that's fine. But if anyone wants to attack me on this issue, and assume things, well...I have been up front with this, and I've lived it, so I won't engage in a bunch of bullshit. Hopefully, someday, we can stop prohibition.

WOW.  For someone who is, I understand, a published author, how NOT to know your audience.   I'm a devout capitalist; I don't have issue with oligopolies, and in fact, I don't really have issue with monopolies.  I'm of the opinion that the use of that as a dirty word is misplaced.   If Microsoft has earned that share of the market, they should be able to avail themselves of that advantage.   I am also a licensed attorney that has dealt with antitrust issues professionally, and know that despite your personal feelings, the notion of a "board" determining what is or what is not a monopoly is the way it has been done for decades (at least since the Sherman Act in the late 1800's).   

I asked a simple question:  how is a law setting the market up so that one entity owns ALL the legal farms NOT a monopoly? And - given that "monopoly" is NOT a dirty word to me - if that is the case, how is it set up so that the monopoly isn't government sanctioned?   None of  the "oligopolies" you mentioned are so because of law, they are so because of other, market conditions.  I can't just go out and by 50 jet airplanes, but if I could (and some have; see JetBlue and SW) I could start an airline.  I would have to comply with regulations to do so, but the regulations themselves don't prevent me from doing so.  That is a big difference.  As explained to me, the regulations as now written DO prevent me from starting a pot farm in Ohio.  Also, it appears that I can't start a pot farm in Colorado and sell in your state either.   That means the liquor analogy fails, because you can buy liquor in Ohio that is not distilled there.   It seems to me the problem isn't "monopoly" in itself, it's that there is no clear, market-based way to get around the monopoly. 

If the perception is not reality, I'm asking you to clarify.  Without the commentary, without the attacks to the questioners.  If you're not interested, so be it.  But more "that's fecking billshot" is not answering the question, and in my mind, explains a lot why this didn't pass. 

Ideas - if valid - should be able to withstand the scrutiny that these questions embody.  Bad ideas don't.   You may, or may not, be right, but right now, from this very educated position, doesn't withstand the scrutiny. 

[Chino]

I get this isn't getting referred to as a Monopoly because there are ten individual farms with the rights to grow. They operate independently of each other, technically creating competition between farms regarding their products and prices. In theory, the nine other farms should keep farm #10 from taking advantage of the consumer. It makes sense. Cool.

But what is keeping these ten farms from colluding in the future? I'll ask the question again. Over $25M dollars was spent by these ten farms to get the sole rights to a multi-billion dollar industry. This was a move that would have rewritten the state's constitution. In the future, if more people wanted to get their skin in the game, and the state has the capacity to issue more farming licenses, are we really supposed to believe that these ten farms will allow that to happen via another amendment? The $25M we've seen to this point will be chump change compared to what will be put forward to prevent the constitution from being rewritten again to allow other people to open farms.

[Stadler]

To your point, Chino, it seemed to me that the ten farms were actually one group, which even if that is false, means they are ALREADY colluding, to get the law passed to begin with. 

[Calvin6s]

.

[Chino]

I'm kind of happy the people of Ohio turned this down. It demonstrates that 'stoners' actually do care about things and are not willing to give up everything just to see weed legalized. It shows that there are things more important to them than simply getting high all day (public's perception, not mine). It gives cannabis users some credibility.

[Calvin6s]

.

[Calvin6s]

.

[Stadler]

It demonstrates that 'stoners' actually do care about things and are not willing to give up everything just to see weed legalized.

It also demonstrates that "free lovin'" stoners also have their own self interest.  That they are willing to cut other people out of the process, as long as they are on the inside.  If they end up on the outside, they will do everything to stop it.  That isn't really some grand gesture.  It is a fracturing of the base.

If the end goal was to simply take the purchase of pot from the "shadows" to the light, this probably would have achieved that.  I guarantee you that if somebody wanted to buy into that plot (of land) and came too late or were just shy of the minimum requirements, they were against it.  But if they got in on time or had just enough to make it in, they were for it.

It really is that simple.

And I guess why I keep pushing the envelope on this, is why the time bar?   Why is there a cut off to begin with?  There seems a pretty wide chasm between "unmanageable regulation" and "you're either in or you're out, starting.... NOW!"   

And right or wrong, as I've seen it presented in multiple sources, it was a case of "here's the 10".   No real meaningful roadmap for how the 10 can, through the market with reasonable and acceptable regulation, become 8 or 12 as market forces demand.   

[El Barto]

And right or wrong, as I've seen it presented in multiple sources, it was a case of "here's the 10".   No real meaningful roadmap for how the 10 can, through the market with reasonable and acceptable regulation, become 8 or 12 as market forces demand.

Yeah, there were a few unaddressed details, which was the problem I raised in my first post on the matter. I think the licensing requirement for individual growers was left completely up in the air. That's the sort of thing I'd want to know about before voting to establish a cartel with a vested interest in that process. Particularly since their interest would likely conflict with mine.