“The medical program we received from voters is not what they voted for to begin with,”
2 Likes
What else are they going to say? Their very reason for existing is keeping cannabis illegal.
3 Likes
I had some weed that good once, and I’ve been chasing that green dragon ever since.
3 Likes
6 Likes
4 Likes
My favorite line!
“The hippies have been right about this product for years, It’s been touted as kind of a miracle plant.”
8 Likes
5 Likes
im dam sure not gonna cry for all the high $$$ companies that dont give a shit about growing a quality product and just want to push out crap weed its happening all over the country. i think that “craft” weed is the thing of the future just like craft beer was not to long ago. hell you grow some weed that knocks your dick not just in the dirt but…under the dirt people will come from miles around for a zip or 2 or maybe more
11 Likes
4 Likes
The person they interview there is local, owns a hydroponics shop nearby, and had hoped to have a license to distribute soon after. The scenario in NYS is sad. Greedy outside companies want in so badly, they are willing to gum up the process with court cases for everyone so they can get their foot the door. NYS lawmakers attempted to give a head start to those with prior offenses and who would be at a disadvantage attempting to start in the business, including women. Not sure if its the lawmakers fault for writing the law too vague (based on conviction point system) to make a court challenge easy, or if its the judges fault for allowing a case to prevent license rollout to those who deserve to get a head start.
One thing is certain, Captain Hindsight is certainly wishing he could have weighed in on the legalization process in NYS.
4 Likes
The whole idea of basing licensing on “social equity” is an end-around to government discrimination. It’s unconstitutional to actually have government discriminate on the basis of race or gender, but it’s not unconstitutional for politicians to blatantly stereotype based on race or gender and attempt to craft laws to cater to those stereotypes. As far as whose “fault” it is that laws written with the intent of government discrimination on the basis of race and gender are failing, that’s a value judgment and I don’t think it’s a good idea for me to weigh in.
7 Likes
My interpretation was they were attempting to correct for the injustice in the past by giving priority to those who were wronged in NYS by marijuana convictions in the years past. Turns out 90% of those who show up on that list were dudes. Really hard to cover all the bases and balance against that, but if your considering who to hand out the first 200 licenses to, that’s not a bad place to start. Licenses beyond that would be up for grabs at some point later, but it would allow the first 200 to at least get a foot hold before much larger companies bully them out of business. Maybe the ole’ captain could have covered the bases by letting the next 100 be women only owned / run shops before allowing open season to everyone.
2 Likes
The government prefers specific classes all the time with legislation, such as only allowing US-made goods to be used in US infrastructure projects, or requiring service disabled veteran-owned and women-owned or minority-owned small businesses to be used in all purchases when the option exists and there’s no compelling justification to not use them.
It’s not discrimination.
4 Likes
Yes… because most of those wronged in NYS by marijuana convictions in the years past were Black and Brown.
I was going to pull quotes from the article specifically referencing how the social equity program is intended to aid certain people, but then stopped when I realized it would be a literal wall of text. 9 quotes from influential NY politicians explaining how it was specifically intended to help Black and Brown communities, because they’ve been most harmed. Again, I don’t want to get into a value debate, but that’s nothing more or less than writing laws based on race and gender. AKA discrimination, but not technically worded as discrimination.
It’s absolutely discrimination. Whether it’s tolerated or even considered to be beneficial is another story, but when we’re making our economic decisions based on the personal characteristics of the seller rather than the price or quality of the product, that’s discrimination. When it’s by government agencies, typically it’s unconstitutional - or should be, anyway. It is when it’s discrimination against Blacks, historically.
Near the end of the nineteenth century, the Court considered whether racial segregation by the government violated the Constitution. If people were separated into different facilities by race, but those facilities were purportedly equally suitable, did that constitute discrimination? Historians have debated whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to end such segregation, but in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court ruled by a 7-1 vote that so-called “separate but equal” facilities (in that case, train cars) for blacks and whites did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The decision cemented into place racist Jim Crow-era laws. In a famous dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan disagreed, stating “[o]ur Constitution is color-blind . . . .” Plessy remained the law of the land until 1954, when it was overruled in Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the reasoning of Plessy and held that separate schools for blacks and whites violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Anyway, I’m trying to stay neutral and keep this non-political and it seems to be failing. I won’t be posting any more about this.
4 Likes
In NYS’s case, its clearly from someone who is outside and seems to like to stir up trouble not just in NYS, but other places as well…
Not sure this guy even is in the cannabis industry, if he’s just trying to prove a point, or take a check from someone else who is out to prove a point. In any case, its an external interest making trouble, not fun for any folks in NYS who thought they were going to get a foot hold.
3 Likes
You have a glass half full perspective, and you’re not comparing apples to apples. All governments privilege some groups all the time with various legislation. Granting privilege to one group is not the same as discriminating against other groups; privilege isn’t a zero sum game.
5 Likes
Also, different when the government policy is meant to make amends for disproportionate harm being visited on one (or more) group in particular - like what happened in the war on drugs/cannabis prohibition.
Side note, Massachusetts has a map that shows communities that are eligible for special consideration as they were on the whole disproportionately affected by cannabis prohibition. It’s pretty interesting, mostly the communities you’d expect but a few I was surprised by (e.g. I think Ludlow might’ve been on there).
4 Likes
I’d like to see that Intel. I’m in Franklin County…
1 Like
Greenfield was on it… I don’t recall any other Franklin County towns (though maybe I’m misremembering because it would be odd to me if Orange wasn’t on it). If I recall correctly Amherst was on it, but not Northampton.
I’ll see if I can find that map on its own, I saw it in the article linked above about the # of social equity licenses issued in Boston and Cambridge.
ETA: Found the map, I was wrong about Ludlow, I was thinking of Monson. And it was only GF in Franklin County.
https://mass-cannabis-control.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Areas-of-Disproportionate-Impact.pdf
2 Likes