Surprise: Big Pot would like states to regulate marijuana

posted at 7:01 pm on July 29, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

It’s almost as if big government and big business collude to write regulations to help themselves out, not us. The formerly counter-culture weed biz is no exception to the allure of regulatory capture, as Byron Tau writes for Politico. Why do they want all these up-and-comers trying to make their lives harder by actually competing on the free market?

Pot legalization activists are running into an unexpected and ironic opponent in their efforts to make cannabis legal: Big Marijuana.

Medical marijuana is a billion-dollar industry — legal in 18 states, including California, Nevada, Oregon and Maine — and like any entrenched business, it’s fighting to keep what it has and shut out competitors. Dispensary owners, trade associations and groups representing the industry are deeply concerned — and in some cases actively fighting — ballot initiatives and legislation that could wreck their business model.

That pits them against full legalization advocates, who have been hoping to play off wins at the ballot box last fall in Colorado and Washington state that established some of the most permissive pot laws in the world. Activists are hoping to pass full legalization measures in six more states by 2016.

Adorbs:

This spring, the Medical Marijuana Caregivers of Maine joined the usual coalition of anti-pot forces that includes active law-enforcement groups, social conservatives and public health advocates to oppose a state bill that would legalize possession of small quantities of the drug. The medical marijuana lobby argued that criminal organizations would start smuggling pot to neighboring states, and they complained that the bill’s tax plan was unworkable and unfair.

Regardless of how you feel about the pot-weed, this is a great object lesson on the forces at work in most regulation, which your liberal friends and acquaintances (or, sparring partners) might be more receptive to than others. It’s why Philip Morris happily backed 2009 tobacco regulation that was supposed to be so very detrimental to the tobacco industry. It’s why health insurers and Big Pharma got on board for Obamacare. Wal-Mart and Amazon—> Internet tax. The more complex the system, the more onerous the regulatory burdens, the fewer little guys can encroach on the turf of those who have the money and lawyers and lobbyists to abide by complex, onerous regulations. It’s a win-win for these giant entities who simultaneously corner markets and up profits while getting applauded for their “surprising” work in their own self interests by a disingenuous political class and an obtuse press.

I should say this kind of behavior doesn’t necessarily make such interests inherently dastardly. They’re often just acting rationally with the playing field before them. But if you want to actually keep the economy from being rigged in favor of the big guys while Main Street gets the shaft (ahem, President Obama), then you need to dismantle a system that pays out handsomely for protection money lobbying and collusion.

This kind of thing is the driver of Tim Carney’s great reporting on cronyism and the crux of what Ben Domenech has written about as a reform movement— libertarian populism. An extrication from the Bigs:

[I]t aims at breaking the Republican brand away from the concept of Big, a concept which the vast majority of young voters accept as truth.

It supports measures which leave people alone (Matt Kibbe’s dictum of don’t hurt them, don’t take their stuff) and protects civil society (the importance of religious liberty and the importance of localism) without falling into the “compassionate” embrace of big. Douthat cites a few of its aims from the Rand Paul approach – a balanced budget amendment, flatter and simpler taxes, and more – but there is also a stronger focus on issues which cut across party lines, including reform of higher education, prison and justice systems, civil liberty protections, and an assault on D.C. cronyism from green energy to Big Banks.

Libertarian populists understand that government has made the problems of debt worse on a national level and an individual one. They understand that government’s approach to education has hurt as well, with nationalized student loans and an educational system which rewards cronies and punishes innovation. They overlap with many across the right in seeking an open educational system that delivers real equal opportunity to every American, regardless of color. Here, the libertarian populists break thoroughly from the soft civic-minded technocrats: they believe that the government school systems are deplorable, and effective education reform has to break out of that system in ways that will inevitably lead to upheaval. And they are right.

As of now, marijuana activists remain united on fighting the feds.

In other pot news, the DEA is still busting medical marijuana dispensaries, even in states where marijuana was just recently legalized even more broadly, in violation of an Obama promise he, of course, claims he kept. You’re welcome, Millenials.

Front-page photo credit to Blind Nomad on Flickr.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s almost as if big government and big business collude to write regulations to help themselves out, not us.

Um, yeah. I’ve only been trying to beat Bayam over the head with this iron truism for as long as I’ve been here.

Bayam, anything to say?

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Let’s make sure we keep it from the High School kids.
(wink, wink)

FlaMurph on July 29, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Prediction: Pot goes legal (even just decriminalized) and cops get doodly squat for jumping on smokers.

Guess what?

ENTIRE FRIKKIN’ FORESTS of weed growing all over the US. More weed than lawn grass. I’m talking Johnny Appleseed plantations of weed as far as the eye can see.

Yeah. You go right on and legislate. You tax. Weed goes legal and the US will have gardens of weed in the highway medians. Flower boxes in Brooklyn. Our national parks: Jurassic Herb Farms.

Don’t kid yourself. It’s already so profitable people are booby-trapping multi-acre-sized farms in the California mountains. It goes legal and all the dopers need to do is keep planting.

Laws and taxes will mean nothing.

It would be like trying to tax maple trees in Vermont.

thejackal on July 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Medical marijuana is a billion-dollar industry — legal in 18 states…

No it isn’t. It’s still illegal under Federal law, which applies in all states and DC.

Fenris on July 29, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I had a British coworker tell me about Lord of the Rings and magic mushrooms. They’re all over England. Everywhere. He said they’re like grass.

Did Tolkein use them? Please. Read the book.

And they’re totally legal. Why?

BECAUSE THEY’RE EVERYWHERE.

thejackal on July 29, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Laws and taxes will mean nothing.

It would be like trying to tax maple trees in Vermont.

thejackal on July 29, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I remember when I was that young and naive.

sharrukin on July 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Keep in mind also that a public union, the prison guards union, were primarily responsible for the defeat of legal marijuana in CA in 2010. Fact is that proposition was leading in the polls until the prison guards union kicked in millions of dollars to the opposition. You wonder, with CA’s overcrowded prisons, how many inmates is enough for these unions. These guard get over $100,000 a year. In a sense, you could say that legal pot was defeated in CA by Big Prison Guards, lol.

anotherJoe on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Libertarians all for it because they are one issue people: potheads and not really for small government.

This excludes all small “l” libertarians that actually believe in limited government… though they cannot be that small if they think getting high is a good idea.

njrob on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

I remember when I was that young and naive.

sharrukin on July 29, 2013 at 7:13 PM

Do you have a point, or is it Snark Week?

thejackal on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

‘In economic warfare, the fighting can never be fair for long, and it is the business of the state to see that its own friends are victorious.’

- Herbert Croly, Progressive icon, 1909

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Sounds like someone got a hold of my business plan…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2013 at 7:16 PM

In many ways, although I think overall it will be detrimental, I look forward to the legalization of pot. There are already 10s of thousands of illegal weed growers out there. Once legal that number will jump into the 100s of thousands, and very likely millions. I doubt there is any crop our there that is easier to grow than pot and requires minimal processing to use. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS justifies a law which “legalizes” pot but doesn’t allow the average person to grow it without permission from the government. How does any government say “Pot is legal” but “You are breaking the law” with those 2 plants in pots on your back deck or balcony?

The idea that they can seriously regulate legal pot growing is ludicrous and every penny they add in taxes will just swell the number of growers.

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Oh look, it’s almost 4:20 here in California!

myiq2xu on July 29, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Bayam, anything to say?
 
Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:04 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on December 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on July 28, 2013 at 8:32 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on April 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

 

…Gates…
 
bayam on September 18, 2011 at 6:00 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on October 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on July 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM

 

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on November 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

The idea that they can seriously regulate legal pot growing is ludicrous and every penny they add in taxes will just swell the number of growers.

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Precisely. Do you have any idea how easy it would be to ban tobacco? It only grows in a certain climate, in certain soil, requires major pesticides. It has to be cured in special conditions (weed? you hang it upside down in a tree for three days).

Try growing your own tobacco. Good luck with that.

Weed? Why do you think they call it weed? It grows anywhere, everywhere.

I have no idea if legalization will be good or bad, but the notion that it can be regulated is pure standup comedy.

thejackal on July 29, 2013 at 7:22 PM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Awesome.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:23 PM

How does any government say “Pot is legal” but “You are breaking the law” with those 2 plants in pots on your back deck or balcony?

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Why, through the “Good and Necessary” clause, of course…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2013 at 7:25 PM

This excludes all small “l” libertarians that actually believe in limited government… though they cannot be that small if they think getting high is a good idea.

njrob on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Um, you assume that all of us ‘think getting high is a good idea.’

I don’t; yet, I can still support drug legalisation considering the failed War on Drugs.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:26 PM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

 
Awesome.
 
Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:23 PM

 
709 results.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Dave’s not here.

Bruno Strozek on July 29, 2013 at 7:28 PM

709 results.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Unsurprising.

HA is grateful, I imagine, that you didn’t reproduce them all. lol

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:30 PM

How does any government say “Pot is legal” but “You are breaking the law” with those 2 plants in pots on your back deck or balcony?

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

http://www.news9.com/story/12899662/epa-to-crack-down-on-farm-dust

EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

A yearlong sting operation, including aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, culminated in the federal government announcing this week that it has gone to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling its contraband to willing customers in the Washington area.

The product in question: unpasteurized milk.

sharrukin on July 29, 2013 at 7:30 PM

HA is grateful, I imagine, that you didn’t reproduce them all. lol
 
Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:30 PM

 
It would be like a Palin thread but with every post saying Gates and/or Bill Gates and bayam.
 
Seven pages.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Oh come on! Big pot is only in it to help people suffering from cancer or something. They already self-regulate so that all of those perscriptions are by legitimate doctors and not some guy in the back of the “dispensary” with a mail order medical degree. Right?

Seriously, it is impossible to have a legitimate discussion about legalizing pot when the potheads are inherently dishonest and always have been. They wrap themselves up in fake science, libertarianism or any other principle when all they really are interested in is the legalization of pot.

Happy Nomad on July 29, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It’s almost as if big government and big business collude to write regulations to help themselves out, not us.
==========================================

MKH,…..That Pure Crzy Talk!!
(kidding):O

canopfor on July 29, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Libertarians all for it because they are one issue people: potheads and not really for small government.

This excludes all small “l” libertarians that actually believe in limited government… though they cannot be that small if they think getting high is a good idea.

njrob on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

You’re an idiot. I’m for limited government and am not a pot head, and I see very little of that in the libertarian community. Most pot heads are Obama voting low information liberal idiots. I know a lot of adults that recreationaly smoke weed, but that’s not even why I think it should be legalized.

I think it should be legalized because I don’t think the constitution allows for congress and administrative laws to decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. We understood that last century — the people passed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. This prohibition didn’t even make the pretense of being legal, now drugs are classified by bureaucrats and aren’t even voted on by congress.

Timin203 on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Ugh,that Crazy,not Crzy!

canopfor on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

astonerii will tell you pot is a gateway drug to heroin use, frantic gay sex and then (horrors!) libertarianism.

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

It would be like a Palin thread but with every post saying Gates and/or Bill Gates and bayam.

Seven pages.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Speaking of a Palin thread, see how many hits you get with ‘bluegill’ & ‘Palin.’

lol

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

Speaking of a Palin thread, see how many hits you get with ‘bluegill’ & ‘Palin.’
 
lol
 
Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

 
I can’t afford the fine for breaking the internet.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM

How does any government say “Pot is legal” but “You are breaking the law” with those 2 plants in pots on your back deck or balcony?

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Why, through the “Good and Necessary” clause, of course…

JohnGalt23 on July 29, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Well, the government DOES have the power to tax, after all :).

Timin203 on July 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM

I can’t afford the fine for breaking the internet.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Snicker.

Resist We Much on July 29, 2013 at 7:40 PM

In many ways, although I think overall it will be detrimental, I look forward to the legalization of pot…

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

My feeling exactly. Just do it. Legalize it, + the other drugs.

I say that drugs are bad, but the cure (police state and so much spending) is worse than the disease. I don’t think it be that detrimental, though. There will be some “side effects,” but a lot of that will be just things that are bothersome to us, like what is happening in Colorado, of people flaunting there new found freedom in front of others.

But the key point is that illegality of pot and drugs seems to have little effect on drug use, or at least addiction. In the 19th century drugs were legal. There was 1.3% of the population addiction rate then, and there’s a 1.3% addiction rate now, even after the most expensive and far reaching drug war has been waged since Nixon inaugurated it in 1971. A pointless war. For no purpose but to hassle people and build a police state. Because it doesn’t work as far as cutting addiction.

anotherJoe on July 29, 2013 at 7:45 PM

How does any government say “Pot is legal” but “You are breaking the law” with those 2 plants in pots on your back deck or balcony?

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

The same way they say “Alcohol is legal, but don’t set up a still in your back yard.”

Kafir on July 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM

An another thing, don’t think that incarceration for marijuana violations are a slap on the wrist. Even if someone was “selling” pot, or other drugs for that matter, sellers like tobacco execs are simply fulfilling a demand. Even if pot is bad, well tobacco is bad, why aren’t tobacco execs put away for years on end? This is an injustice:

In 1991, Robert Moss and his wife had a one-year old and a baby on the way when Moss was convicted of conspiracy to violate marijuana laws. Because of federal sentencing guidelines passed in the mid-80s, Moss was sentenced to more than 20 years in federal prison. Moss returned to his family in Seattle in the Fall of 2011.

anotherJoe on July 29, 2013 at 7:59 PM

It’s almost as if big government and big business collude to write regulations to help themselves out, not us.

It’s a step towards the new socialist fascist model European and US leftists love.

In the new socialism the government exercises ownership control by colluding with and regulating established “too big to fail” big corporations. And both the government and the big corporations have a common interest in destroying smaller corporations and entrepreneurship. Big corporations want to destroy present and future competition. And it is easier for the government to regulate and control a relatively few big corporations rather than many smaller ones.

The classic socialist model of outright government ownership is outdated.

Further down the road in the new socialism, when most smaller corporations have been driven out of business, the government and the “workers” (AKA, “stakeholders”) will be given seats on the board of directors of relatively few big corporations. If not given actual seats then they will get “virtual” seats. And the government and “worker” board members will wield the big sticks.

Obamacare already does this with health insurance companies. This model was given a test run when Government Motors was formed out of the wreckage of General Motors, using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

farsighted on July 29, 2013 at 8:07 PM

this is a great thread…thx for the laughs

imo there’s hardly any argument for the weed prohibition. I mean at one point you could argue that society/culture could be damaged. Oh well…scratch that off.

The increase police powers have been a negative (forfeiture, etc.) and the wholesale criminalizing of lots of people and the huge underground economy…(not to mention the Cartels)

r keller on July 29, 2013 at 8:13 PM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Do you have a “Rush” collection?

CW on July 29, 2013 at 8:28 PM

OT:

As Fats Domino might say, Ain’t that a shame

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the billionaire Saudi Arabian investor, has warned that his country’s oil-dependent economy is increasingly vulnerable to competition from the US shale revolution, setting him at odds with his country’s oil ministry and Opec officials.

In an open letter addressed to Ali Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, the prince called on the government to accelerate plans to diversify the economy.

Abdul, quickly tell me the spot price of sand!

BobMbx on July 29, 2013 at 8:31 PM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Has anyone told it yet that Gates has a reputation for being apolitical. Many extremely wealthy businessmen and business owners are. Getting too involved in politics by making too many controversial political statements, and taking too many controversial political positions, is bad for business. If push comes to shove most businessman will try to come across as leaning barely, just a little, left or right of center, depending. The safest routes for them to take, to keep the MSM off their backs, is to occasionally speak out on so-called social issues involving “tolerance” and or to take anodyne nebulous stances on “diversity” (with little or no consequences for their corporations) and whatnot.

Wealthy businessman registering Dem on the West Coast is basically a pro forma “good for business” move. Sort of how very few corporate bigwigs, basically none, in Chicago would dare speak out against the one party system in Chicago and will take every opportunity to shake hands with current Mayor.

Also, many of Microsoft’s business practices and much of their business model would be the envy of many of the so-called Robber Barons of the Gilded Age. Microsoft profit margins on what is essentially a non-material product, software, are enormous. Microsoft is legendary for working young salaried IT people very long hours (it’s voluntary, of course, wink-wink). Microsoft is heavily involved in out sourcing work to low wage countries. And there is a huge segment of IT workers with a socially liberal libertarian bent who absolutely hate and despise Microsoft. The free software community and the Open Source Movement crowd, for a start.

farsighted on July 29, 2013 at 8:33 PM

farsighted on July 29, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Seems to me if Gates was the liberal hero Brayam thinks he is that Gates would simply entrust his foundation to the federal government.

CW on July 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Seems to me if Gates was the liberal hero Brayam thinks he is that Gates would simply entrust his foundation to the federal government.

CW on July 29, 2013 at 8:39 PM

I submit he would already have done so. As would all the other limousine liberals.

Since they haven’t, we know who they really are.

BobMbx on July 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM

…Bill Gates would say “Grow Your Own!”

.
.
.
.
a pot thread of less than 50 comments?
WTF?.

KOOLAID2 on July 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM

a pot thread of less than 50 comments?
WTF?.

KOOLAID2 on July 29, 2013 at 8:43 PM

The thought of big businesses taking over and running the pot business in collusion with big government may be causing much confusion and disorientation.

farsighted on July 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM

astonerii will tell you pot is a gateway drug to heroin use, frantic gay sex and then (horrors!) libertarianism.

John the Libertarian on July 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM

huehuehuehuehuehue

Jeddite on July 29, 2013 at 9:02 PM

It’s almost as if big government and big business collude to write regulations to help themselves out, not us.

And it doesn’t change by electing Republicans either.

Genuine on July 29, 2013 at 9:09 PM

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 7:19 PM

 
Do you have a “Rush” collection?
 
CW on July 29, 2013 at 8:28 PM

 
No, but I’ve got a King Crimson record somewhere in the garage.

rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 9:46 PM

The rub.

Bmore on July 29, 2013 at 10:05 PM

The idea that they can seriously regulate legal pot growing is ludicrous and every penny they add in taxes will just swell the number of growers.

Rocks on July 29, 2013 at 7:17 PM

I thought one of the big arguments for legalization was the tax revenue that could be raised. Now you say taxes won’t work because everyone can grow their own. If so, it may be the states will want to stay with medical marijauna only so that they can keep getting a piece of the action.

KW64 on July 29, 2013 at 10:22 PM

For anyone interested in researching the subject, Gabriel Kolko’s “The Triumph of Conservatism” has a great explanation of how the meat packing industry actually lobbied to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 in order for the larger companies to be able to smash the smaller ones with onerous regulations.

(And before you shrug the book off because the author is a socialist (more specifically of the “New Left” sort), a short anecdote. Murray Rothbard, libertarian anarcho-capitalist, upon reading the book, figuratively picked it up and ran with it. After several semesters of using it as a textbook for his classes and citing the book in numerous articles and books, he received numerous letters from Kolko, pleading that he “please stop using my book to support free-market capitalism!”)

Glenn Jericho on July 29, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Libertarians all for it because they are one issue people: potheads and not really for small government.

This excludes all small “l” libertarians that actually believe in limited government… though they cannot be that small if they think getting high is a good idea.

njrob on July 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM

You really like spewing stupid s**t about things for which your knowledge level is zero, don’t you?

MadisonConservative on July 30, 2013 at 1:56 AM

The dirty secret of American politics is that the Democrat Party is Big Business’ best friend precisely because Big Government regulations erect barriers to entry and lock in market share.

Republicans are hardly blameless in this regard, either…but they’re pikers compared to Democrats.

About marijuana: IF it becomes legal (something I support, even though I have no interest in smoking it myself) AND it becomes something society tolerates (like it tolerates alcohol), the left will slowly turn and go after it with the same kind of nanny-state laws and lawsuits with which it attacked cigarettes and obesity.

You can’t make these people happy. Their raison d’etre is accumulating power for themselves and inflicting misery on others.

DRayRaven on July 30, 2013 at 6:21 AM

Pot is easy to grow and can be grown anywhere. It grows like weeds, hey, they don’t call it weed for nothing. Also, one very large plant can produce as much as a pound of pot. One pound of pot is more than even a very heavy smoker could smoke in an entire year. Do the math: 1 pound = 16 oz = 448 grams. That comes out to over a 1/4 oz of pot a week or 1.23 grams a day. Even Obama couldn’t smoke that much by himself.

Dollayo on July 30, 2013 at 7:54 AM

Duh. Who didn’t see this coming? As many a savvy commenter here has mentioned selling marijuana as an extra source of revenue instead of full legalization was going to blow up in the face of marijuana advocates.

Theworldisnotenough on July 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM

Duh. Who didn’t see this coming? As many a savvy commenter here has mentioned selling marijuana as an extra source of revenue instead of full legalization was going to blow up in the face of marijuana advocates.

Theworldisnotenough on July 30, 2013 at 9:00 AM

I’ve been arguing this is outcome for years. The legalization of pot means that growing your own pot takes profits away from corporations and revenue from government coffers. Them’s two powerful adversaries. Legalizing pot only incentivizes government intervention, and what used to get you days in jail will eventually put you under it.

Next, look for patents on genetically-engineered pot and government bans on growing or using any other kind. Remember the raids on dairy farms that were “illegally” selling unpasteurized milk to people who wanted unpasteurized? Regulatory capture, potheads.

shuzilla on July 30, 2013 at 10:37 AM

CW on July 29, 2013 at 8:28 PM
rogerb on July 29, 2013 at 9:46 PM

The Temples of Obama?

kirkill on July 30, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Just like here in Colorado when the taxing of Pot came up for discussion. It was exactly as you’d expect, it’s a great reason to legalize it so you can get the tax revenue, until the politicians come looking to collect the tax revenue.

Scheming demons dressed in Kingly guise.

kirkill on July 30, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Classic example of how the liberals want government out of their way when it serves them (legalizing marijuana), but want government to intervene when it suits their demands (border enforcement, voter’s rights).

djaymick on July 30, 2013 at 11:45 AM

The only way we’re going to see pot fully legalized is if there a sales system akin to the tobacco and alcohol industries – limited production with tax stamps on everything and labels for “strength” of the product.

Home growers might be able to get by with small quantities for personal use. Maybe. But the gov’t will need to get the tax revenue stream out of it.

The pot growing industry isn’t going to look like Cheech and Chong. It is going to look like RJ Reynolds, Miller-Coors and InBev (Anheuser Busch’s parent company).

krome on July 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM