|
Post by Angelo on Feb 14, 2017 16:24:56 GMT -5
Stuff just keeps getting better. Found out today that we have a right of way through the property next to ours, which grants us access to the natural gas pipeline which we wouldn't have had access to for another 4 years without the right of way. So when all the other Growers have 20 or $30,000 a month electric bills, mine's going to be a lot lower. Have you guys ever heard of the Bloom Box? Surprisingly it has nothing to do with growing weed. LOL. Is that one of those solid fuel generators made by Bloom Energy? The military was looking into using those because there was less thermal byproduct from operation. Would that actually be cheaper than just using the direct access to the natural gas in your case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2017 9:17:43 GMT -5
Big initial cost, larger long term savings. I haven't done the deeper math yet, as we just found out about it yesterday. But my approach looks more at the long view. I'm thinking about lower fixed costs over a longer period of time. In this industry, the fixed costs are pretty static across the board for Growers. So anything you can do to accrue savings, gives you a big leg up on the competition from a price point perspective.
If the Bloom Box can recoup its costs in five years, it would be a wise purchase. But we'll see. I just think if our lights and our electricity source have been fully recouped in 5 years, we will really be able to start pulling away from the competition from a profit margin perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 15, 2017 16:23:04 GMT -5
Big initial cost, larger long term savings. I haven't done the deeper math yet, as we just found out about it yesterday. But my approach looks more at the long view. I'm thinking about lower fixed costs over a longer period of time. In this industry, the fixed costs are pretty static across the board for Growers. So anything you can do to accrue savings, gives you a big leg up on the competition from a price point perspective. If the Bloom Box can recoup its costs in five years, it would be a wise purchase. But we'll see. I just think if our lights and our electricity source have been fully recouped in 5 years, we will really be able to start pulling away from the competition from a profit margin perspective. I never read up on how those types of generators work but I'd imagine one specialized for what you have access to would be more efficient? Wasn't Bloom's advantage more along the lines of being able to take in multiple energy sources, and allow operating in more environments?
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Feb 24, 2017 4:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 24, 2017 6:12:58 GMT -5
If that happens, Missouri gonna wind up in its own civil war. I betcha October surprise for reelection Trump legalizes
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Feb 24, 2017 7:48:56 GMT -5
If that happens, Missouri gonna wind up in its own civil war. I betcha October surprise for reelection Trump legalizes Good. That would give an excuse that pot is more volatile than meth since all those potheads are violent.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 24, 2017 9:11:33 GMT -5
Well, you elect a teetotaler as president and approve Sessions (a guy who said he thought the KKK was OK until he heard they smoked pot) as AG, this isn't exactly surprising.
Total bullshit, but not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by CaveBearOG on Feb 24, 2017 11:24:18 GMT -5
Tony for President 2020. Can I be your smoked out campaign manager. Jim "Big Bud" Bonucci sounds good 😊
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:35:45 GMT -5
Fuck Sessions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 14:26:16 GMT -5
Relax fellas.
Funny thing here, but it is not Sessions, Spicer, or Trump who have the final word here. It's Congress, as they hold the purse strings. As I've mentioned before, the R from California, Dana Rohrabacher, has introduced the Rohrabacher Amendment into Congress successfully since (I believe) 2013.
What his amendment does is prohibit the use of Federal Funds to engage in marijuana raids in states that have legalized for medicinal use. This year, he has included recreational growers in his amendment, and from what I have read it is expected to be included in the 2017 budget.
That's the thing to watch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 7:59:20 GMT -5
You certainly can't get everything you want out of a candidate, but this is a pretty big fuck you to a lot of the voters out there. And no deflecting on this, one Tony. Congress has ALWAYS had that power, but the point isn't about Congress, it's about Trump's administration's stance:
"President Donald Trump’s administration said on Thursday for the first time that it will crack down on marijuana sales in states that have approved recreational pot use."
Now, if we are all praising him for "doing what he said he was going to do", why in the world should we assume he's not going to attempt to do this? Let's put down our pom poms for a moment and have a real discussion about this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:11:07 GMT -5
This is generally my problem with the right. The combo of religious ideals and morals getting in the way of rational thinking. I had a feeling they would get in the way of this. Not that Clinton wouldn't have.
I have a strong feeling Trump is going to move forward with this. It will be interesting to see how they differentiate between medical and rec.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 25, 2017 10:43:51 GMT -5
I don't think this was Trump's doing. I think either Priebus or Pence behind his back had Spicer say this, and now Trump is stuck going along with it or looking like he has no control over his own administration.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 25, 2017 11:04:26 GMT -5
I don't think this was Trump's doing. I think either Priebus or Pence behind his back had Spicer say this, and now Trump is stuck going along with it or looking like he has no control over his own administration. Right. Because it's sooooo hard to fathom that a teetotaler who nominated a hardcore anti-pot guy as his AG would be in favor of this sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Feb 25, 2017 11:36:25 GMT -5
I don't think this was Trump's doing. I think either Priebus or Pence behind his back had Spicer say this, and now Trump is stuck going along with it or looking like he has no control over his own administration. Right. Because it's sooooo hard to fathom that a teetotaler who nominated a hardcore anti-pot guy as his AG would be in favor of this sort of thing. Not at all, however Trump wasn't the type to push it on others, hell he has a winery and last year he even said that non-medical legalization is good. On top of that, he was big proponent of legalization in the 90s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 12:07:02 GMT -5
You certainly can't get everything you want out of a candidate, but this is a pretty big fuck you to a lot of the voters out there. And no deflecting on this, one Tony. Congress has ALWAYS had that power, but the point isn't about Congress, it's about Trump's administration's stance: "President Donald Trump’s administration said on Thursday for the first time that it will crack down on marijuana sales in states that have approved recreational pot use." Now, if we are all praising him for "doing what he said he was going to do", why in the world should we assume he's not going to attempt to do this? Let's put down our pom poms for a moment and have a real discussion about this. I'm not really sure what you mean by "deflecting". You have to realize that I'm watching all this shit like a hawk, and it's been on my radar a lot longer than most people's. I think I've got a pretty firm grip on what's going on here. If you find my logic to be flawed, I'd love to hear where I'm going wrong. I see this as nothing more than political gamesmanship, and I think the maps below should make the point for me. Happen to notice anything when you compare these two maps? Because I sure do. Looks like a lot of the states that were responsible for Trump winning are also against marijuana. Makes complete sense that they'd come out saying, "We're going to crack down on....[insert contentious issue here]....even if they know they can't do much of anything. Political Gamesmanship 101 here. And while you are correct that Congress has always had the power, this is the first time ever that Congress is in session with a majority of the states (28) having medical marijuana laws on their books. The Rohrabacher Amendment for the 2017 Budget lumps recreational in with medical, and there is no state that JUST has recreational. In order for Rohrabacher's Amendment to not pass, members of Congress are going to need to go against their constituents. Furthermore, to come after recreational they'd have to also go after medicinal, which is basically taking away medicine from sick people. This is never a wise move for a politician and not one that any are likely to make. I think the Trump Administration knows the writing is on the wall. If Congress refuses to fund any marijuana raids in states that have legalized, then Sessions' hands are tied. But they can still point to the time they said they were against it when it's time to campaign in the grey states from the weed map above. Trump won't be breaking any promises by saying he's "cracking down" on recreational. If he said the same about medical, then he would be. But since Rohrabacher's Amendment is even more likely to be included in this year's budget than it was last year's (last year there were only 23 states that had medical marijuana laws, and the amendment passed despite not having a majority of states on board yet), I don't see this as much of an issue or much cause for concern. Still moving ahead with no reservations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 9:40:12 GMT -5
Anybody up for a mafia joke?
Well, too bad. Here it is anyway:
The Deaf Italian Bookkeeper
A Mafia Godfather finds out that his bookkeeper, Guido, has cheated him out of $10,000,000.00
His bookkeeper is deaf. That was the reason he got the job in the first place.
It was assumed that Guido would hear nothing so he would not have to testify in court.
When the Godfather goes to confront Guido about his missing $10 million, he takes along his lawyer who knows sign language.
The Godfather tells the lawyer, "Ask him where the money is!"
The lawyer, using sign language, asks Guido, "Where's the money?
Guido signs back, "I don't know what you are talking about." The lawyer tells the Godfather, "He says he doesn't know what you are talking about."
The Godfather pulls out a pistol, puts it to Guido's head and says, "Ask him again or I'll kill him!"
The lawyer signs to Guido, "He'll kill you if you don't tell him."
Guido trembles and signs back, "OK! You win! The money is in a brown briefcase, buried behind the shed at my cousin Bruno's house.
The Godfather asks the lawyer, "What did he say?"
The lawyer replies, "He says you don't have the balls to pull the trigger."
Don't you just love lawyers?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 9:46:46 GMT -5
I don't really have a strong opinion on this but I am assuming this is being said to strengthen trumps moves against sanctuary states/cities. You can't let the states Set policy on weed and then tell them they can't do the same on immigration.
|
|
|
Post by locogato11283 on Feb 26, 2017 12:55:49 GMT -5
Trump FTW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 12:08:36 GMT -5
Yep, cheerleaders. "I want state's rights...except when my guy is in office."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 12:11:29 GMT -5
This retarded political climate has people so scared of possibly giving up a millimeter...instead of being a normal human being and saying "I love my guy, but I hate this weed thing", everyone feels the need to come out and defend anything he wants to do, because they are so fearful of giving a tiny little bit of wiggle room. The same thing happens on the left, and they end up looking stupid for it as well.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I love my guy, but I hate his stance on weed." It's pretty simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 12:45:45 GMT -5
This retarded political climate has people so scared of possibly giving up a millimeter...instead of being a normal human being and saying "I love my guy, but I hate this weed thing", everyone feels the need to come out and defend anything he wants to do, because they are so fearful of giving a tiny little bit of wiggle room. The same thing happens on the left, and they end up looking stupid for it as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I love my guy, but I hate his stance on weed." It's pretty simple. There's also absolutely nothing wrong with being well informed. Trump has said exactly two things about weed. 1. "I think Medical is good, do we agree? Yes." 2. "It should be a state's right issue." As such, I like my guy's stance on weed. I think his AG is a weasel, who won't be funded to go after weed like he wants to. I get the point you're trying to make, the problem is that you don't seem to have all the facts at hand within your grip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 12:54:50 GMT -5
I'm sitting in my state capital right now waiting to speak about legal weed and how the state should handle it. I was invited here by the representative from the state's capital, Roger Katz as well as the campaign manager for Yes On 1, David Boyer. I have been involved with this process as much as a non politician can be. In twenty minutes I will be speaking to about 300 people about concerns, the right path forward regarding commercial grows, how our medical program is obsolete and suffers from terrible lack of oversight (which is why the black market for marijuana is so big in this state), how oversight will be easier when the supply is regulated and controlled, and how vital it is to not allow people from out of state to be allowed ownership stakes in the growing, processing or sale of the plant (Sorry Premier). This was a decision made by the people of Maine, for the benefit of the people from Maine. Profits should remain within the state, not shipped out to benefit individuals in other states (or countries)(Sorry Premier).
We'll see how this shakes out.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 28, 2017 13:02:41 GMT -5
I'm sitting in my state capital right now waiting to speak about legal weed and how the state should handle it. I was invited here by the representative from the state's capital, Roger Katz as well as the campaign manager for Yes On 1, David Boyer. I have been involved with this process as much as a non politician can be. In twenty minutes I will be speaking to about 300 people about concerns, the right path forward regarding commercial grows, how our medical program is obsolete and suffers from terrible lack of oversight (which is why the black market for marijuana is so big in this state), how oversight will be easier when the supply is regulated and controlled, and how vital it is to not allow people from out of state to be allowed ownership stakes in the growing, processing or sale of the plant (Sorry Premier). This was a decision made by the people of Maine, for the benefit of the people from Maine. Profits should remain within the state, not shipped out to benefit individuals in other states (or countries)(Sorry Premier). We'll see how this shakes out. Why so anti free market, bro?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 13:09:10 GMT -5
I'm sitting in my state capital right now waiting to speak about legal weed and how the state should handle it. I was invited here by the representative from the state's capital, Roger Katz as well as the campaign manager for Yes On 1, David Boyer. I have been involved with this process as much as a non politician can be. In twenty minutes I will be speaking to about 300 people about concerns, the right path forward regarding commercial grows, how our medical program is obsolete and suffers from terrible lack of oversight (which is why the black market for marijuana is so big in this state), how oversight will be easier when the supply is regulated and controlled, and how vital it is to not allow people from out of state to be allowed ownership stakes in the growing, processing or sale of the plant (Sorry Premier). This was a decision made by the people of Maine, for the benefit of the people from Maine. Profits should remain within the state, not shipped out to benefit individuals in other states (or countries)(Sorry Premier). We'll see how this shakes out. Why so anti free market, bro? Because this is a product that has no legitimate interstate commerce yet. It's bullshit that someone from Alaska can come in here, grow it, sell it to the people of Maine and then ship the profits back to Alaska when they cannot legally ship the product itself back to Alaska.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Feb 28, 2017 13:32:40 GMT -5
I'm not sure that one follows the other - assuming there is a prohibition on the product crossing state lines, why would that necessarily/logically mean the profits can't cross state lines? To me that still seems to be government regulation that is anti-free market.
Plus, SCOTUS has long held that even homegrown weed that is grown and smoked in a single state (indeed, in a single household) is part of interstate commerce.
A somewhat related question - can a grower in Maine get a business loan from a NH bank?
But, let's assume that one does follow the other - let's assume that if the product can't legally cross state lines then neither should the profits. What is the nature of the prohibition on the product crossing state lines? NH has legal medicinal weed, I think. And I haven't looked at a map in a while but I'm pretty sure NH borders Maine. So what stops someone from bringing product from Maine to NH? Is that a law in Maine? A law in NH? It can't be a federal law that's of concern, since the sale of marijuana in Maine, NH, or anywhere else is already in violation of federal law.
Just curious.
I have so many questions... Hopefully you get fewer questions at your state capitol speech than you got from me.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Feb 28, 2017 13:56:39 GMT -5
Why would someone from Alaska travel to Maine? It's legal in Alaska... :/ Should have used Wyoming as an example
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Feb 28, 2017 14:14:08 GMT -5
This retarded political climate has people so scared of possibly giving up a millimeter...instead of being a normal human being and saying "I love my guy, but I hate this weed thing", everyone feels the need to come out and defend anything he wants to do, because they are so fearful of giving a tiny little bit of wiggle room. The same thing happens on the left, and they end up looking stupid for it as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I love my guy, but I hate his stance on weed." It's pretty simple. You're right but it's a little more complicated. We now have an AG that is very strict about the law, the written language of the actual statutes he is now presiding over, and we have inconsistencies when we have marijuana listed as a federal controlled substance, vs allowances states want to make for medicinal and recreational. Federal law trumps state law so of course we do have things that require analysis and/or a change to the federal law. I personally don't care about Sessions personal opinions because they are ultimately irrelevant and he would admit that. He clearly seems to be opposed to recreational use and has concerns about it, but every year we get closer to nationwide acceptance and people having less "fear" or at least concern. I agree that Spicer's comments are a cause for pause and different than we heard on Trump's campaign trail. And if Trump changes direction and aggressively directs states on how to approach recreational use, or allows Sessions to prioritize enforcement, that's a negative he should (and will) be called upon. That said, we have a hyper aggressive, lying, dishonest media that has already gone after Trump 500000x more than they did Obama during his entire 8 years. So you can expect people that recognize the double standard to be less vocal about criticizing a guy that has been in office for a month.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 14:46:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure that one follows the other - assuming there is a prohibition on the product crossing state lines, why would that necessarily/logically mean the profits can't cross state lines? To me that still seems to be government regulation that is anti-free market. Plus, SCOTUS has long held that even homegrown weed that is grown and smoked in a single state (indeed, in a single household) is part of interstate commerce. A somewhat related question - can a grower in Maine get a business loan from a NH bank? But, let's assume that one does follow the other - let's assume that if the product can't legally cross state lines then neither should the profits. What is the nature of the prohibition on the product crossing state lines? NH has legal medicinal weed, I think. And I haven't looked at a map in a while but I'm pretty sure NH borders Maine. So what stops someone from bringing product from Maine to NH? Is that a law in Maine? A law in NH? It can't be a federal law that's of concern, since the sale of marijuana in Maine, NH, or anywhere else is already in violation of federal law. Just curious. I have so many questions... Hopefully you get fewer questions at your state capitol speech than you got from me. I don't really care if requiring owners within this industry to provide proof of residency for three years prior to the referendum's passing is anti-free Market. I don't care at all in fact. I look at what Colorado did period when they passed their law one of the requirements for getting a license to do a commercial grow was proof of residency for I believe 3 years prior to their passing of that law. Even today if you want a commercial license in Colorado you need to have lived there for 3 years. If you want to come in from out of state and work in the industry, I don't care. Good for you. However if you want to own one of the businesses, no. This process worked in Colorado. The largest grow is within that state are all owned by people from Colorado. It puts a limit on big businesses involvement as well as making sure that the millionaires that this industry will create are people from this state. I'm not sure what you're talking about with banks because a grower can't get a loan to grow marijuana from a federally insured Bank. A grower can't do that in Maine or Massachusetts or New Hampshire or any other state in the country. I don't care what the Supreme Court's position on the matter is either. They can say it's part of interstate commerce, but I think you should note that I said legitimate interstate commerce, meaning taxation as well as the free flowing of the product from one state to another. As far as transporting weed between Maine and New Hampshire, yes that would be illegal. In fact any legally sold weed in Maine will be labeled as such. If you keep it in the container it was sold in and travel to New Hampshire and are caught with it you will face criminal sanctions. Since this industry operates outside of the federal law, I don't give any deference to the federal law. It's not relevant. That means that we can set the rules up to benefit Maine first. And based on how this conversation went today, that's exactly what's going to happen. If it ever becomes legal on the federal level then all of this doesn't matter. But for now it is something that the people of Maine want to keep in house. Given that this industry is expected to be worth about 220 million dollars by the year 2020 I think it is pretty reasonable for the people of Maine to want to take steps to ensure that as much of that 220 million dollars stays in the state. And I used Alaska as an example because there is already a guy from Alaska trying to set up shop in my old home town. He is going to find out the hard way. He is not going to be allowed to get a commercial license.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Mar 2, 2017 3:30:15 GMT -5
Looks like Sessions may be on his way out.
|
|