I find this interesting

[chickenhead]

California has begun cracking down a bit in repsonse to some of the medical marijuana clubs that have popped up and been operating in questionable fashion. You can read about it here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/26/BA4212IJ74.DTL&tsp=1

J. Brown put out an 11 page booklet of guidelines they should follow to keep from having him bust them, the parts I think are interesting are:

Operate as nonprofits. Buy pot only from fellow cooperative members at prices that cover cost, as opposed to professional growers out for big bucks.

This is, so far as California law is concerned, a legal and necessary medical service. One type of drug in a sea of available prescription drugs. Now why would this particular singular drug be targeted in such a way that anyone and everyone that operates around it must operate as a non-profit? I find that very peculiar. Drug companies can rack up billions in profits without having the AG threatening to come and arrest them. Why is this any different?

Now, I understand if there is some tax evasion going on...tax evasion is a crime no matter where the underlying income is coming from.

And I also understand that selling to patients without the proper prescriptions is a crime, as it would be for any drug and/or drug seller.

None of that has anything to do with profit and loss however. Like I said, interesting that p and l is the main target here.

[bigmack]

Forget about the L as any drug pusher will tell you there ain't any. As for the P, many of these operations are swimming in loot. They have a resident "quack in the back" who will fill out a prescription for anything from a hangnail to glaucoma. "Doc I stubbed my toe" "What you need is dope, and lots of it"

If given the choice, any one of us would much rather have the driver of an oncoming car high on dope rather than jacked up on Jack.

If they want to make dope available to viable patients they ought to have a state employed Doc in the back. (46 need not apply)

[chickenhead]

Forget about the L as any drug pusher will tell you there ain't any.

All reasonable but the above, which is either false bravado or a pretty good example of survivorship bias. This particular weed isn't that hard to coax fruit from, the market price is a sole reflection of the risks involved.

Like I said, quack docs and income tax evasion are normal every day things for an AG to protect against, that's his realm. Profit and loss...no reason this would be any different than any other drug.

[bigmack]

All reasonable but the above, which is either false bravado or a pretty good example of survivorship bias.
Hate to be obtuse but I don't recall ever hearing dealers say that overhead is cutting into their profit margins. Then again, I don't recall having a conversation with a dealer.

[chickenhead]

Hate to be obtuse but I don't recall ever hearing dealers say that overhead is cutting into their profit margins. Then again, I don't recall having a conversation with a dealer.

Well, I guess neither of us know what you're talking about then. I'm not sure I can think of another business where success and longevity actually (dramatically) increase the chances of total and irrevokable business failure, but it's true of the drug scene.

Example #1 is the topic at hand.

[equicom]

The difference between the marijuana dealers and other drug dealers is that marijuana is generally considered to be safer, so the dealers are not as wary about using it themselves. Therefore if they are all going to eventually go out of business, at least the marijuana dealers can do so with a smile on their face.

[JustRalph]

The difference is, there is still a Federal law against growing Maryjane

There are also Federal laws against selling it etc, that are in direct contradiction to what is being done in California. This is a classic case of states rights, and defying the Feds. The Bushies have decided not to make a case out of it. Although there are still some cases out of San Francisco that have yet to go to court. It is a weird situation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,411984,00.html

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_webpot.3318fdb.html

[chickenhead]

The difference is, there is still a Federal law against growing Maryjane

That's what I think is odd tho, is that it's the CA AG that's pushing this. You are definately right about the last part, it's a very weird situation.

There has been a lot of push back in the communities even in places like Mendocino county, long a dope growing mecca. The economies have long been fueled by it, and the extent of it has always been an open secret...but people are not really happy about it just being plain open.

[skate]

you are showing ability to diagnose.

remove the dewlap.


roll with it babe