Marijuana bill will stop Big Alcohol And Tobacco from dominating market

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Peaceful Dusk86, Mar 21, 2021.

  1. This is the name of an article I just read here: Schumer Marijuana Bill Will Stop Big Alcohol And Tobacco From Dominating Market, He Says

    This bill lead by Chuck Schumer will seek to restrict the ability of Big Alcohol And Tobacco to overtake the market and will prioritize small businesses impacted by the domination of Big A & T and especially those businesses of who have been harmed by this senseless prohibition and focus on justice and freedom for those people.

    Warms my heart good to see a politician actually doing their job for once.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. I hope like hell something happens sooner rather than later.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. What's wrong with big alcohol and tobacco companies dominating the pot market?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Cannabis is so much better than those two ... making up Sin Taxes for cannabis based on previous Tobacco harms and such ... not a single person has dies from cannabis ingestion, cannot say that about tobacco
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. So large corporations can buy up pretty much every other industry but pot is different somehow? Where does the double standard start and stop?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Let the market decide what brand of weed they want based on competition. If a small company can provide better or similar weed at a better price the public wouldn't buy the big tobacco brand. If the big guys can provide a decent product at a decent price I don't really care what other products they sell.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Pack of 20 smokes is 9 bucks where I'm at. Cant imagine how much a pack of joints will cost.
     
  8. But it's not the tobacco companies fault cigs are so expensive, most of the $9 is taxes. If they charge a similar excessive tax on weed then no matter who's producing it, it will be equally expensive. I still don't know why anyone is against big alcohol or tobacco companies getting into the weed market other than some people are giving minorities preferential treatment when it comes to licensing, something about reparations. So it's nothing against the big corporations, it doesn't look like anyone's saying they're doing something wrong, they just want to give the business to certain groups of people without regard to who can bring the best product to market at lower prices.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. If they discriminate based on race, it's social justice. If we do it, it's racism. Our speech is violence and their violence is speech.

    Lots of dummies will think this is progress...
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  10. Did any of those fools hide genetics you enjoy, all under threat of the law? Where's your loyalty? Lol
     
  11. Not that I know of. Do you know of any genetics they've hidden? Loyalty to what?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. I for one believe we owe a debt to the clandestine growers who preserved genetics. These growers had to stay small, and never got to potentially turn their business into a thriving one, able to do business freely. They never got a fair chance to be backed by the government as legit. Even in the current recreational market, they have to stay a cash biz. The high cost of taxes and regulations can only be absorbed by a huge company. These are the groups referenced as most affected by the current laws, including our vets, caretakers, and other small producers. I feel they should be protected.
    You're ok with letting big Corp in to monopolize the market....which means stealing genetics and patenting them, lobbying to limit home cultivation, etc......that's why I asked "where's your loyalty"? Because big money backed by the government is who got cannabis outlawed in the first place.
     
  13. I didn't see any of this mentioned in the thread.... is this comment because of who is introducing the bill? I'm part of no party, but I'm down with whoever wants to take the first steps towards federal legalization.....guess I'm a dummy?
     
  14. The people who would get the license to grow and sell pot won't be the same individuals who have illegally grown all these years. Some may have the same skin color of people who were unfairly treated by the justice department but they will not be the same people. Is it justice to let one person benefit because someone else who looked like him was mistreated by the law? Let everyone have a chance to grow and sell and let the market decide who does it best. It doesn't matter who got cannabis outlawed or why, those people are all dead and can't be punished
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. There's a lot of presumptions in your comments. I'm not trying to go there. Does small business equate to (nothing) for caucasians to you? You're in Cali right? Don't think any own the farms in the Emerald Triangle or in SD county? Lots of families that have been doing it for years....they're included in the legislation.

    “The legislation we have will make sure that smaller businesses, businesses in communities of color, get the advantage because communities of color have paid the price for decades. They should at least get something back.”
    But this was also said, "That’s, one, making sure that we expunge records. Don’t talk about free adult use of marijuana without talking about expunging records."
    If records are expunged, then some of those licenses will go to those people who grew unlawfully....many of them are already growing.
    I'm in LA, and I can tell you that preference is already given to the groups mentioned, and still I don't see many minorities as owners of shops. Truth is, even to start a small business here is a miracle, especially in those low income areas mentioned. Anyway, all a big company has to do is buy the license from the little guy, seen it done plenty. Just get a vet or minority and bring them in as a consultant, and make a deal to hand over the license.
    Besides, everyone goes to the big name dispensaries or delivery services....you think those businesses are in the hood? No way

    The most important thing though, is that the legalization extends to growing for personal use outdoor/indoor, that is literally all I care about.
     
  16. Maybe the rest of the bill matters... Just a thought. Funny, Schumer decries "institutional racism" then literally wants laws that treat people differently based on their race...
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. That's what you grab from my comment to dismiss everything else I mentioned? Of course the rest matters, but the most important should be personal use, and personal cultivation....don't you agree? Fuck all these businesses and legislation if I can't grow my own. I'm not trying to get involved with the speculation on race....I want to focus on the legality of weed at the federal level.
     
  18. I wish legalization was all that was in the bill. I'm not willing to endorse blatant legalized racial discrimination to get there. Or ignore it like some
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. It's all speculation at this point since the bill hasn't been introduced. But the way things are currently suck ass. I don't know if you've been personally affected by this BS, but I have.
    And the way things have been since cannabis has been outlawed, there definitely is discrimination, whether you want to ignore it or not.
    Have you heard that Mexico is getting primed to become the largest legal cannabis industry in the world? All the businesses will go down there and the US is gonna miss out. Then all your points and everyone else's will mean jack shit, because why stay in the US when they can go to Mexico?
    Legalize it first, work out the details later, time is of the essence.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  20. Way different. This industry is kept alive by outlaws and small outfits. Now the government wants to say it shouldn't have been illegal.....If they do it wrong, and make big Corp the king, the black market is gonna be a big problem. Don't you think that warrants a different approach?
     

Share This Page