While I am pleased by the impact on researches, I am somewhat concerned that the lower scheduling of marihuana at 3 will lead to very large businesses that morph into something closer to big tobacco or the labcoat gangsters in some small parts of the pharma industry and distribution chain, which clearly was the top cause of the opioid epidemic. I would rather it be regulated in a way that small businesses (including cottage industry) of a limited number of plants provide much of the supply to dispensaries and probably also processors in a relatively local area rather than very large grow businesses. The relative value of marihuana is attractive to the small farmers and I think that their economic ability to compete in limited quantities should be preserved and even encouraged while relatively much more care should be taken in regards to the establishment of very large grow businesses, who I would rather see in the role of filling in supply gaps that local growers aren't capable of filling rather than dominating distant markets.
In addition I think that encouraging smaller producers rather than concentrated production could result in less negative international impact. For example, after Thailand legalized recreational weed it was flooded with Cali. I am unsure if these were grow companies or a dispensing company as I couldn't find the article I read about it in, but that drove the price down by a third and the illegal imports were used as a campaign issue by the winning party in elections, who then restricted recreational use (but allowed medical). In this way, the businesses involved in illegal exports sort of shot themselves in the foot (unless the high price of $22 a gram after price had already fell by a third made the short term gain worth it to them I guess), made the US look reckless, and did so while at least partially stifling local to the market growers in the exact opposite of what I would like to see.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4451443 times)