tokeofthetown.com — There is a widely held misperception that businesses in the California medical cannabis industry are prohibited from making a profit. In reality, no California law prohibits cannabis-related businesses from making a profit.
Feb 10, 2012 View in Crawl 4
justinr93Feb 10, 2012
now thats a step but lets just skip all this bullsht and decriminalize it already
brucealmightyFeb 11, 2012
No matter how profitable legal marijuana is now or may ever become it is extremely unlikely to ever approach anything close to the enormous profit margins on most legally produced prescription drugs.
And besides, if it's being produced and distributed for medicinal purposes why should those in the supply chain be expected to work for free or minimum wages any more than all those employed by the big pharmaceutical companies?
FPSmotoFeb 11, 2012
If cannabis became legal, it would take money away from the pharmaceutical industry by billions of dollars per year. That might still seem like a small amount compared to the size of big pharma, but I think it will play an impact that natural medicine can be more effective than a lot of man-made drugs that have sometimes horrible side effects.
An enemy that is big enough to take away profits from industries means lobbyists by big tobacco, alcohol and pharma will fight against legalizing cannabis even for medical use to the end.
CornermanFeb 11, 2012
That's the sad truth.
GoldJacketFeb 11, 2012
Bingo! Will not be legalized because of the money these people are making right now, including the drug cartels. Legalize weed and the value is cut in half if not more.
RyanFeb 12, 2012
First of all, you're giving far too much credit to "most legally produced prescription drugs." It's impossible to compare the legitimacy of a drug when you're busy treating symptoms with drugs that create more symptoms so lets be fair and assume that most legally produced prescription drugs are, in fact, parasitic to our society. Like a tape worm.
Second of all, you're not giving marijuana enough credit. There's a reason the lumber and textile industry went after marijuana. There are 31,000 known uses for it. Hell, you can make flame retardant bricks that have a negative carbon foot print to produce. We've got years of research and technology to catch up on when it comes to how cannabis can serve mankind. But the profitability isn't the issue.. why? Because you don't have to be a billion dollar company to manufacture it. :)
readmikenowFeb 10, 2012
Duuuuuude...whoa...I say we like....bump up the prices....like..now or somethig...I'm hungry!
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2012
Ron Paul, the only candidate INCLUDING OBAMA, who will legalize weed.
www.ronpaul2012.com
amaoicanFeb 11, 2012
I assure you, none of the candidates are going to legalize marijuana. Candidates can't legalize things.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2012
Ok, but why arrest people legally selling medicine to patients?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/pot-activists-threaten-obama-2012_n_1190301.html
amaoicanFeb 11, 2012
Because you touch yourself at night.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2012
so you are voting for someone who will arrest patients buying medicine? that is why you have 5000 comments and only 12 followers, hate on hater
amaoicanFeb 11, 2012
Regardless of who I vote for, the only candidate who will have any chance of affecting the legal status of marijuana is the one who wins the election.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2012
but he won the last election and he arrested people?
amaoicanFeb 11, 2012
Ron Paul hasn't won s**t, nor has he arrested anyone. Get your head out of your ass.
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2012
"the only candidate who will have any chance of affecting the legal status of marijuana is the one who wins the election." One of the candidates is the current president. and i like keeping my head in my ass, it smells like your Mom :)
ferrellcreationsFeb 12, 2012
wow... if the only reason you like Ron Paul is because of marijuana you are a fool. Even if he became president, do you honestly think anything he wants to do would actually happen, this guy is extreme..however I do want marijuana legalized, It will not be because Ron Paul so get over it.
Closed AccountFeb 12, 2012
Ferrell, who are you supporting, and what is the most important issue for you this election?
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
BTW - I am FOLLOWING 12 people; I am FOLLOWED BY 246. And few, if any, of those 246 are follow-backs; I've never seen the point of following people. When I created my account I followed 10 people because Digg encouraged/required you to do so, and I followed two more people for god knows what reason.
Point being, your follower count is much higher, but it is over a much longer time period and your following count is also high, suggesting to me that your number is inflated by people following you back as a courtesy.
And of course, I dismiss the claim that follower/following count is a meaningful metric of anything.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
why are you avoiding the part about Obama being a candidate and having state licensed medical marijuana providers arrested?
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
Why am I avoiding the part where Obama is enforcing the laws that he is required to enforce under the constitution he has sworn to protect and defend?
I guess that kinda answers your question.. but more broadly, candidates make promises and other statements based on the knowledge and opinions a candidate has at the time. Sometimes when a candidate becomes a president, he (or theoretically, she) becomes privy to more knowledge and can better appreciate the prevailing policy, and discount his own previous opinions.
In the case of marijuana, my broad opinion is that drug prohibition should be illegalized, and that the only regulation you need is to put a burden of liability on sellers who fail to inform their customers of the potential hazards of the products they sell (ie if you are a pharmacist and you sell a customer a drug that kills him, and you did not warn him of this possibility, you can be held responsible).
But I don't want the president to be able to decide which laws he's going to enforce.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
i hope you are getting oxygen inside the bubble you live
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/barack_obama_smoking_weed_picture.0.0.0x0.611x404_i9mo.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/30/obama-marijuana-online-chat_n_1242907.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/pot-activists-threaten-obama-2012_n_1190301.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/war-on-weed-obama-marijuana_n_1005483.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kampia/obama-from-first-to-worst_b_1001781.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/where-does-obama-stand-on-the-medical-marijuana-crackdown-20111107
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
Stopped reading at a picture of Obama smoking a joint. The president enjoying an activity does not make that activity legal.
The president is also responsible for hiring hundreds of thousands of men whose job it is, essentially, to kill people (yes, terrorists, but terrorists are people, too). If you or I hired someone to kill someone for us, that would be a crime, yet we could not point to the fact that the President did it as evidence that what we did is legal.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
you keep digging the hole deeper, many of the people who hired Obama to be president thought he was going to stop killing "evil-doers". I like the part about you not reading, says a lot about how informed your opinion must be.
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
"many of the people who hired Obama to be president thought he was going to stop"
If you really believe that then you are as blind as Anne Frank. Candidate Obama made it very clear that the War in Afghanistan would need to be ramped up, not drawn down.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
here is what he actually said about war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixZQlBnMsc
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
We're getting off-topic. The question was whether or not Obama should be enforcing the laws under the constitution he's sworn to protect. If you want to vote for someone who will work toward changing a law you disagree with, great. You have my support. But if you want to complain because Obama is enforcing the law as it exists, you do not have my support. The President is not above the law.
Closed AccountFeb 13, 2012
so you are referring to the 1970 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Prevention_and_Control_Act_of_1970 signed by Nixon, whose primary purpose was to comply with INTERNATIONAL treaties? Hardly a constitutional position, agreed? Life, liberty and pursuit of people harming no one while in their home playing music?
amaoicanFeb 13, 2012
The constitution set forth itself, international treaties and federal laws created pursuant to itself and international treaties as the supreme law of the land. Congress passes laws, and the Constitution requires the President to enforce them.
anglosaxongalFeb 11, 2012
And it should. Calif. belongs to Mexico. And the good rich man who helps his people should be their president, but they are trying to KILL him. Uh....see a resemblance between their corrupt killers and OURS in AmeriK?? REPUB Nephilim.....