https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/8/thailands-cannabis-industry-says-us-growers-are-eating-their-lunchIf I may make a suggestion, I think that this is a bad sign about the way the legalized marihuana industry is heading. I heavily support legalization but I also think that having large growers and very limited liscences of permits issued at high fees will lead to an industry dominated by a favored few rather than being a profitable sideline for larger numbers of people. For example, in my state there is a limit on the number of plants allowed grown without a commercial liscence due to the successful ballot mandating this clear as day. However the smallest tiers of commercial liscences cost at least several thousand dollars; I have heard it has decreased slightly to around "merely" $5000 to apply for the permit, which unless it has changed can be denied with no refund. This pricing was put in place by the state Congress as required by ballot, however it seems to be structured in a way by state Republicans (who controlled the congress at the time) to favor those both wealthy (due to the cost) and favored enough (due to local officialdom having say on allowance of permitting) to purchase a liscence and be granted permission. There is also a testing requirement to bring it to market, though I find this less than onerous and even useful should it be affordable.for small grows and not used as a price wall to hinder small growers. Having not looked into the pricing for this service, I do not know whether batch testing prices are too high for small (non-commercial) producers, if it were to become an option for them to participate in the market.
In an example of how silly this may be getting, my town had a public meeting regarding the issuance of permits; in this instance a young couple wished to open a small dispensary after a large dispensary was approved to a local businessmen. At the meeting a scion of a local wealthy family (not the couple the meeting was about) argued there that he had formed a group with retired military and of all people police and corrections officers to lobby for liscencing in the area. This actually aligns with my own thoughts on the matter, however this group appeared to be lobbying for exclusionary permitting of commercial grows by argueing that security should be the standard for the granting of permits. However ironically this was framed at the meeting in the form of relation to firearms experience and the need of such when granting permits, when it is quite illegal to involve firearms in relation to state legalized marihuana production and sales.
I believe that encouraging small scale production is of greater interest to the public than creating a gated system of commercial growers; I have no issues with commercial grows unless the permitting process is financially difficult for the poor or exclusionary of those not of a favored class. I have linked the story above due to my worry that it is also a repurcussion of bad behavior by large commercial ventures. Also in my opinion it may be a bad idea to favor in permitting those in charge (or formerly in charge) of enforcing cultivation and distribution laws, though that is not directly relevant to the link and is more of a potential local issue should this argument succeed; whether it is taking root outside of my local area I do not know. Should the permits not be exclusionary through favoring of such esteemed members of society as law enforcement, I would have little concern with this as they too should not be excluded, though I'd advise that smuggling into prisons by staff has been a long standing issue in the US (As a compromise to correct some forms of smuggling I'd be fine with giving prisoners access to recreational or medical marihuana or THC products though that's adding a burden to their outside the walls loved ones more than likely unless prison wages are increased, and I don't vouch for it as workable as I expect sales of marihuana to prisoners would not be a popular stance at all; even marital conjugal visits are barred in at least some places for example).
While I am not familiar with NY state law, one thing I saw in news articles that I agreed with was granting permits or liscences as a first priority to those who had been convincted of prior marihuana offences. I don't know how well that is turning out, but I appreciate the spirit of that idea. I've read that unliscenced dispensaries are growing to be a problem in NYC and are a target of crimes including robbery, but I am not sure how those came to be in the first place and I am not sure if it's being somewhat overblown as part of the crime panic being used for political reasons.
In my town, after many years of refusing to consider permitting/liscences, a somewhat influential businessman has been granted permission and even some local and state funding (to renovate a spacious building that was previously abandoned) to open a dispensary and restaurant. I find no problems with this, as it would be a marked improvement of the situation. However I am worried that this sort of policy (regarding the permission side rather than the grants of money which in this instance are related to community improvement and renovation rather than being related to operating a marihuana business), if limited to persons of this favorable aspect, could lead to a monopoly and that even supplying the distribution monopoly will be pushed out of reach of the average person in favor of allied commercial grows operated by favored classes. I believe that this approach could lead to further turbulence as indicated in the link above, as well as ending in stillbirth an industry that could feasibly be entered into as a sideline occupation at low cost and that could otherwise bring profit to the less wealthy in addition to the well-established. An argument against this is that further expansion of access could cause over production and drive down prices, however I feel that large commercial grows with thousands of plants are more likely to be drivers of this than small growers, thus I suggest that commercial grows should be for countering a void in local or state supply from lack of participation or capacity by small growers rather than a mandate for the opposite.
I'm not against commercial grows, and I think the permitting for grows should be made open to more people by lowering the permitting fees substantially; however cirumstances like in the link above should be a red line. I do not think that replicating Big Tobacco is the right course of action. I think commercial grows should be intended as a remedy for a lack of supply in the local (or even the state) market, not used to over produce and then to undercut local growers whether domestic local or via export to put distant local growers out of business. Small grows are very limited or banned in their ability to participate in the market with how it's structured in my state from what I've read on the matter. In regard to distribution, affordable if not cheap liscences for distribution of relatively small amounts may be a good idea in addition to small grower sales to dispensary clearinghouses, though whether this is feasible with testing costs I do not know; I think after having used TurboTax that taxation and required records could be handled with an app in the modern times. I do think that quality testing is a good standard, however if it costs too much for a person to test a small number of home-grown plants (assuming this could be brought to market) it's simply another barrier that favors commercial growers who can afford these expensive liscences where such testing makes sense financially under expensive testing costs (of which I am unaware whether it is or not currently prohibitively priced). I think for testing the best result would be to still require testing for legalized sales of any scale, but at a cost of testing per batch that is well within reach of small growers as small as a dozen plants which happens to be the recreational grow limit in my state. Home test kits may be a good innovation as well if such is possible to create with efficacy, should they too be affordable and particularly if they are within easy reach of both a purchaser and a producer.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4439788 times)