How much would it cost to set every delivery truck up to transmit said data to be entered into the database, and why would FedEx want to expend capital on something like that? It’s a corporation, not a public entity. It makes far more sense to spend the money to install license plate readers, etc, at a warehouse facility where you want to keep tabs of who’s coming and going. Why would FedEx care if a stolen car just drove down Main Street?
3 Likes
Nonsense conspiracy explanation: currying favour by being an agent of total surveillance in order to be the front runner for when they privatize the postal system.
7 Likes
I was going to say “That’s balderdash!” but these days that does make a certain perverse sense.
5 Likes
3 Likes
Regardless of the motive behind this specific case:
That’s the point. We live under a system where capital owns and controls most everything. Including the public sphere. Corporate lobbying is mainly icing as the politicians are in their pocket before voting begins.
This isn’t a state-run oligarchy. The state doesn’t control the wealth. In my opinion, wealth is the primary source of power and the state is largely subservient to that power. More of a bulwark (and a baton) hiding real power as basic public services are placed further into private hands.
Theoretically, in a democracy with a mixed economy, one has control over one’s public services.
We are moving towards a fully corporate system where there will be little to no input from those who don’t hold the “majority stake.” Meaning the vast majority of us.
In my opinion there isn’t really a difference between a centralized private oligarchy versus a centralized state oligarchy. Both are pyramid schemes and should be fought against.
11 Likes
N.Y.’s cannabis clown show: One more blow to state’s legal weed industry
Excerpt from above;
Ironically, this entire debacle has achieved effectively the opposite of the legislation’s initial intent: the industry has been so uncertain, so slow and so mismanaged that the companies with the capital and expertise to navigate all of the hurdles are mainly the large out-of-state firms that lawmakers had initially tried to protect local small business owners from. Good intentions got smoked by bad policy.
…
This begs the question, was this possibly intentional?
7 Likes
They did it in California when they destroyed all the prop 215 people. Those are the people who created and cultivated most of the strains we enjoy here today. Now I have to do hella research just to get cannabis that doesn’t make my balls ache.
6 Likes
On one hand I’m jealous. Would love to go out and enjoy cannabis in social situations outside the home (remember concerts in the 70s). But don’t understand why they need to alcohol free and vice versa. Personally I a currently not drinking. I love New Yorks policy, “I you can smoke tobacco, you smoke weed.
Shout out for common sense.
5 Likes
I would imagine getting a liquor licence on top of all the other hurdles would be prohibitive.
There was a place up here long ago where you could go to smoke. They didn’t sell anything, which I think is how they got away with it, but you could rent, say, a Volcano, or fancy piece of glass to smoke out of.
It was there a long time even under total prohibition.
Of course. No way they’re letting that kind of money into the hands of Joe small business owner. It’s too big.
5 Likes
It is not a good time to start a business right now.
4 Likes
I am firmly convinced it was intentional. The big money cannabiz wants full control. Why do you think homegrowing remains a felony in so many “legal” states. The politicians know damned well and good what they were doing when they made the law and defined distance from schools differently than in any other law.
5 Likes
I’m a 1000 percent in the intentional camp. Cuomo had already told the medical providers he would hand them the recreational market. No competition.
Small farms were never supposed to be a part of this
6 Likes
FLAG***********THIS ONLY NEWS WHEN A DEMOCRAT DOES IT!!!
#GOP Congressman Files Bill To Reschedule Marijuana As Trump Considers Decision On Reform
This is the [fourth session in a row that Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) has filed his “Marijuana 1-to-3 Act,”] a reference to the fact that the measure would make it so cannabis would be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
*****DONT WORRY I GOT IT
FLAG !!!
4 Likes
I GUESS ITS ALL POLITICS 
3 Likes
Im confused because
2024?
2 Likes
I saw that earlier and didn’t post it…not cuz it was (R) but because those same (R) people killed it last year. Conveniently left out that information and acts like he’s a victim.
It’s all just a distraction from you know what.
3 Likes
It’s all a plan to kick the can down the road and not do it again next year.
3 Likes
They should make them wear Nascar jackets with their sponsors on there so we can see who paid them to introduce their legislation
7 Likes
If they did that, you’d never be able to distinguish one party from the other party because they would all be wearing the same sponsor patches.
7 Likes
That sounds great, then it wont be difficult to discern who doesnt need to be there because they are there for the wrong reasons
5 Likes