# Actual Value of Marijuana?



## gupp (Oct 19, 2010)

Ive been curious as to what the actual value of marijuana would be if it were legal. 

Any kind of assumption is ok here (subsidized, not, etc) but please state any assumptions beyond basic legality.

Put a %THC content too if you want.


----------



## vradd (Oct 19, 2010)

hell yea lets get some statistics


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

Tobacco sells for about $3 per pound wholesale. That would be a good guess at wholesale value for MJ.


----------



## golddog (Oct 19, 2010)

I'd say $30-$50 an ounce.  On the street.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

golddog said:


> I'd say $30-$50 an ounce.  On the street.


So, $480 to $800 per pound, retail? If it is completely legal, I could easily undercut those prices and live like a prince.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 19, 2010)

One guy can easily grow 300 pounds per year. At $10 per ounce, that is 10X300X16 ($48,000) per year. Seems like a reasonable living.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

At first, I'm sure the prices will still be very high, but once you get more production prices will drop. To what? I'm not sure, probably double what tobacco sells for.


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 19, 2010)

The only people that will make money with legal weed is the tax man, legalization brings legislation and taxation. 

Instead of busting you for possession it will now be tax evasion.

$400/oz given my assumptions.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

gupp said:


> Ive been curious as to what the actual value of marijuana would be if it were legal.
> 
> Any kind of assumption is ok here (subsidized, not, etc) but please state any assumptions beyond basic legality.
> 
> Put a %THC content too if you want.


$2000 a pound for good indoor. $500 a pound for outdoor. That's my best guess.


----------



## gupp (Oct 19, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> $2000 a pound for good indoor. $500 a pound for outdoor. That's my best guess.


since ganj seems a lot harder to grow than tobacco ( have to wait until it flowers instead of just picking leaves), this seems feasible.

of course, increased supply will drive down the price until it's no longer profitable to grow.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

gupp said:


> since ganj seems a lot harder to grow than tobacco ( have to wait until it flowers instead of just picking leaves), this seems feasible.
> 
> of course, increased supply will drive down the price until it's no longer profitable to grow.


Yep. But the bud we grow in Cali is an entirely different product than mass produced tobacco. You can grow bud for $100 per pound, it just wouldn't be the quality that the market has a demand for. There is very little demand for mass produced cheap schwag. People would rather pay more and get better quality. Ask anyone who works at a dispensary, top shelf sells better than low grades. If legalized the price will go down a lot, but when they talk about being able to sell bud for $38 an ounce, that may be true, but it wouldn't be something most people are interested in.


----------



## thewinghunter (Oct 19, 2010)

its close to that of gold? hahha

gold $900 x 1 ounce/31.10 grams = $28.94/gram
i have gotten some Gs for $20... $28 is only a lil more


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 19, 2010)

thewinghunter said:


> its close to that of gold? hahha
> 
> gold $900 x 1 ounce/31.10 grams = $28.94/gram
> i have gotten some Gs for $20... $28 is only a lil more


http://www.goldprice.org/


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 19, 2010)

It will all depend on where you're standing.

The extreme glut in BC a few years ago drove prices down to about $1600/lb.

Below that, the growers preferred to smoke it themselves.

Like any crop, below a certain price, people stop farming, and try something else.

Realistically, $1500 for good outdoor and $2500 for good indoor will likely be the bottom after the initial glut is gone.

Just about what dispensaries are currently paying.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 19, 2010)

thewinghunter said:


> its close to that of gold? hahha
> 
> gold $900 x 1 ounce/31.10 grams = $28.94/gram
> i have gotten some Gs for $20... $28 is only a lil more


It was equal or even slightly more valuable than gold before the recession.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

You guys are out of your fucking minds. It would be DIRT CHEAP with no laws. Even top grade medical stuff could be produced for practically nothing.


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> You guys are out of your fucking minds. It would be DIRT CHEAP with no laws. Even top grade medical stuff could be produced for practically nothing.


 How???? explain


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 20, 2010)

i have spent the last 4 weeks straight trimming. all day every day. i do NOT work for free. how many hours of labor alone are involved in producing a pound of weed? from watering, to shopping for supplies, to tending, to trimming and packaging? let alone the cost of the physical needs.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i have spent the last 4 weeks straight trimming. all day every day. i do NOT work for free. how many hours of labor alone are involved in producing a pound of weed? from watering, to shopping for supplies, to tending, to trimming and packaging? let alone the cost of the physical needs.


Marijuana production/cultivation can be a HUGE business with huge amounts of money to be gained, BUT that's where pharma stands to loose a HUGE amounts of money because of how easy it is to grow your own medicine opposed to buying some synthetic crap concocted together that has all kinds of negative side effects. It was made illegal for racism but it remains illegal because of how much money pharma and other huge corporations can lose.


----------



## mrboots (Oct 20, 2010)

Weed would not be dirt cheap, even if it was legal. Fdd is right, there is a lot of labor and supplies needed to grow a top quality crop. 
The best way to figure it out is to look at what it sells for in Holland. I imagine the prices here would be similar if it were completly legal. I was there about 10 years ago and can only say what it went for at the retail level. I don't know if it has changed, maybe someone who has been there recently could.
Every shop sold a 25 guilder bag ($12.50 us, it was before the euro) The top quality stuff at the time was strains like white widow and jack herer, your bag would be like 1.2 grams. The lowest quality stuff was Thai and Jamaican imported, bricked up sativas and your bag of that would be like 4 grams.
So if the top quality stuff was selling for about $10 a gram retail, that would probably be about $5 to the grower maybe a little less, so that would put pounds at $2000-$2250. Thats half of what it is now, but still enough to make some money.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i have spent the last 4 weeks straight trimming. all day every day. i do NOT work for free. how many hours of labor alone are involved in producing a pound of weed? from watering, to shopping for supplies, to tending, to trimming and packaging? let alone the cost of the physical needs.


I don't expect anyone to work for free. How many pounds have you trimmed in your 4 weeks straight of trimming though? And is it really so much of a skill that no one else could possibly do as good of a job for a cheaper price?

All i'm saying is that it's over priced because it's illegal. I could reduce my largest cost right now if I could simply utilize the sun rather than paying for expensive lights and expensive electricity to run those lights in an attempt to recreate the sun. And if you want the indoor environment still you could still build a structure to give you control over other aspects of the environment (like temp, humidity, pest control, etc) and still utilize the sun. You could even supplement artificial light at any time you want if the sun is not providing enough for you. 

There is no way you are going to convince me that the price (which reflects the time, effort, and work put into the product) is THOUSANDS of times more expensive than other products. I understand it will take time and skill to cultivate high quality product, but at a cost several orders of magnitude above just about every other product just seems insane to me.


----------



## lowrider2000 (Oct 20, 2010)

gupp said:


> since ganj seems a lot harder to grow than tobacco ( have to wait until it flowers instead of just picking leaves), this seems feasible.
> 
> of course, increased supply will drive down the price until it's no longer profitable to grow.


why would it matter if its its indoor or out lol


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> I don't expect anyone to work for free. How many pounds have you trimmed in your 4 weeks straight of trimming though? And is it really so much of a skill that no one else could possibly do as good of a job for a cheaper price?
> 
> All i'm saying is that it's over priced because it's illegal. I could reduce my largest cost right now if I could simply utilize the sun rather than paying for expensive lights and expensive electricity to run those lights in an attempt to recreate the sun. And if you want the indoor environment still you could still build a structure to give you control over other aspects of the environment (like temp, humidity, pest control, etc) and still utilize the sun. You could even supplement artificial light at any time you want if the sun is not providing enough for you.
> 
> There is no way you are going to convince me that the price (which reflects the time, effort, and work put into the product) is THOUSANDS of times more expensive than other products. I understand it will take time and skill to cultivate high quality product, but at a cost several orders of magnitude above just about every other product just seems insane to me.


Right you are. People get paid so much because it's illegal. Plain and simple. Trimming really doesn't require a degree in astrophysics and anyone can do it. So in a real world sense it would be one of those low paying factory jobs, probably 8-10 bucks an our depending on location. As with most of the marijuana manufacturing would, I'd imagine the highest paying would be monitoring the grow and adjusting nutrients or whatever. Aside from managers, ceo's. 

I'm sure if/when it's legal and big business it will be mostly grown indoors for cannabis and hemp will still be out. Marijuana is only expensive because it's illegal. Make it legal, give it some time, prices will probably be around double the price of tobacco.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

And for the record the type of "legal" I was talking about would be like tomatoes. So legal you will not walk down the street without seeing plants in peoples backyards and on their porch. Perhaps hanging out of a topsy turvy planter.


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> Marijuana production/cultivation can be a HUGE business with huge amounts of money to be gained, BUT that's where pharma stands to loose a HUGE amounts of money because of how easy it is to grow your own medicine opposed to buying some synthetic crap concocted together that has all kinds of negative side effects. It was made illegal for racism but it remains illegal because of how much money pharma and other huge corporations can lose.


 I think it it certainly easier to go to the pharmacy than to grow and harvest and use marijuana- I agree it is a better healthier alternitive to pharmacutiacls a lot of times but I strongly disagree with your assumption of ease or convience


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> I don't expect anyone to work for free. How many pounds have you trimmed in your 4 weeks straight of trimming though? And is it really so much of a skill that no one else could possibly do as good of a job for a cheaper price?
> 
> All i'm saying is that it's over priced because it's illegal. I could reduce my largest cost right now if I could simply utilize the sun rather than paying for expensive lights and expensive electricity to run those lights in an attempt to recreate the sun. And if you want the indoor environment still you could still build a structure to give you control over other aspects of the environment (like temp, humidity, pest control, etc) and still utilize the sun. You could even supplement artificial light at any time you want if the sun is not providing enough for you.
> 
> There is no way you are going to convince me that the price (which reflects the time, effort, and work put into the product) is THOUSANDS of times more expensive than other products. I understand it will take time and skill to cultivate high quality product, but at a cost several orders of magnitude above just about every other product just seems insane to me.


I agree. It will cost enough to allow everybody in the business to earn a reasonable living. What do farmers earn now for other similar crops? Probably something like $50K per year. What do the middlemen earn? Probably $70K per year.

If you ignore taxation, because who the fuck knows what the "man" is going to tack on, my guess is about $10 to $40 a pound at the retail level.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I agree. It will cost enough to allow everybody in the business to earn a reasonable living. What do farmers earn now for other similar crops? Probably something like $50K per year. What do the middlemen earn? Probably $70K per year.
> 
> If you ignore taxation, because who the fuck knows what the "man" is going to tack on, my guess is about $10 to $40 a pound at the retail level.


I am completely ignoring tax in my assumptions. Any tax that would be included for the production of something like lettuce or tomatoes is small and unavoidable and won't contribute significantly to the final price, at least as far as comparing to other products. A vice tax would/could raise the price substantially, and could very well end up costing the prices people are quoting in here. However I assumed no vice tax at all when I said it would be dirt cheap.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

beardo said:


> I think it it certainly easier to go to the pharmacy than to grow and harvest and use marijuana- I agree it is a better healthier alternitive to pharmacutiacls a lot of times but I strongly disagree with your assumption of ease or convience


I never said anything about personal growing. I'm talking about big companies producing it then putting it on shelves.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

"I am completely ignoring tax in my assumptions. Any tax that would be included for the production of something like lettuce or tomatoes is small and unavoidable and won't contribute significantly to the final price, at least as far as comparing to other products. A vice tax would/could raise the price substantially, and could very well end up costing the prices people are quoting in here. However I assumed no vice tax at all when I said it would be dirt cheap."

I think you are absolutely correct. If completely legal, it will be dirt cheap. There is no good reason to grow indoors, except to be covert. At $40 per pound (about $5 per ounce) everybody in the supply chain can make an honest living at it.


----------



## beardo (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I never said anything about personal growing. I'm talking about big companies producing it then putting it on shelves.





mr2shim said:


> pharma stands to loose a HUGE amounts of money because of how easy it is to grow your own medicine


 did you read your post?


----------



## mrboots (Oct 20, 2010)

If there is now reason to grow indoors, why does indoor hydro sell for more in the Cali despenaries?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

" A vice tax would/could raise the price substantially, and could very well end up costing the prices people are quoting in here."

Just one more point. I think it is inevitable that there will be a vice tax applied. Politicians are greedy fucks, and people are already used to paying $400 an ounce, so the state will swoop in and tax it till it hurts. 

The down side to punishing tax levels is that it will create a black market that will simply perpetuate the criminal enterprise that we see today. I prefer to see the criminals in jail for tax evasion than to see EVERYBODY terrorized by the drug warriors, though, so I am willing to make that trade.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

beardo said:


> did you read your post?


I meant to edit that and put grow marijuana :/


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

mrboots said:


> If there is now reason to grow indoors, why does indoor hydro sell for more in the Cali despenaries?


I don't know. Maybe I am wrong, it has happened before. I don't smoke, grow, or sell pot. From what I have read though, outdoor grown MJ is superior to indoor.


----------



## mrboots (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I don't know. Maybe I am wrong, it has happened before. I don't smoke, grow, or sell pot. From what I have read though, outdoor grown MJ is superior to indoor.


Why are you on a marijuana forum if you don't grow, smoke or sell pot?


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

But if I was able to build a green house or shed in my yard to utilize the sun AND still have control over the micro environment it would absolutely be worth the price of building it to save on lights and electricity.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I don't know. Maybe I am wrong, it has happened before. I don't smoke, grow, or sell pot. From what I have read though, outdoor grown MJ is superior to indoor.


bullshit. you do something marijuana related. That's like joining an obesity forum and saying you're anorexic.



guy incognito said:


> But if I was able to build a green house or shed in my yard to utilize the sun AND still have control over the micro environment it would absolutely be worth the price of building it to save on lights and electricity.


You'd only be able to grow and harvest once a year. That's the main benefit of growing indoors. Year round harvest.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

mrboots said:


> Why are you on a marijuana forum if you don't grow, smoke or sell pot?


Because I am a libertarian. The war on drugs is a colossal waste of money and lives. The war on drugs has destroyed the foundation of US law by subverting the bill of rights. I want the war on drugs to end, p19 is a good first step.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> bullshit. you do something marijuana related. That's like joining an obesity forum and saying you're anorexic.


Nope, I make my living as an engineer. Have not smoked pot in over 35 years, and I only tried it briefly back then.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Nope, I make my living as an engineer. Have not smoked pot in over 35 years, and I only tried it briefly back then.


So may I ask why did you join?



desert dude said:


> Because I am a libertarian. The war on drugs is a colossal waste of money and lives. The war on drugs has destroyed the foundation of US law by subverting the bill of rights. I want the war on drugs to end, p19 is a good first step.


Never mind, good to have you here!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So may I ask why did you join?
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind, good to have you here!


Thanks. I already cast my ballot, as did my wife and my two adult children: that is four "YES" votes on p19


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> bullshit. you do something marijuana related. That's like joining an obesity forum and saying you're anorexic.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd only be able to grow and harvest once a year. That's the main benefit of growing indoors. Year round harvest.


But why bother paying for light? Why not just upscale the area of your grow by the number of harvests you expect to get per year indoors? If you can get 5 harvests indoors, just build a grow area 5 times larger than that outdoors and get a single harvest. Your overall harvest will be the same, but you wont spend any money on lighting.


----------



## dam612 (Oct 20, 2010)

just look at how much u get exploited on cigs, 12$ a pack round here, u dont think they would do the same after they see how well sales of mj go??


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> I don't expect anyone to work for free. How many pounds have you trimmed in your 4 weeks straight of trimming though? And is it really so much of a skill that no one else could possibly do as good of a job for a cheaper price?


well, anyone with dirt, some seeds and the sun could grow marijuna, I'm not doubting that. They probably wouldn't do a very good job though without knowing proper water, fertilizer, care.


----------



## woodsmaneh! (Oct 20, 2010)

I have seen some costing done my meds grow ops and they put the cost at 4 to 6$ a gram now as to value on the street, we will see marketing very similar to tobacco or booze and I think the price will drop to 40% current levels. You will pay more for great weed and less for swag. If you want in on it get your check book out when they do pull the trigger. As an aside I don't think we will see it soon do to the amount of funding police forces get for drug work, most departments get 70% funding for this and most is directed at pot. Think about it, you lose say 50% funding where do all the laid off cops go? Not going to happen real soon. IMHO


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 20, 2010)

dam612 said:


> just look at how much u get exploited on cigs, 12$ a pack round here, u dont think they would do the same after they see how well sales of mj go??


So? It will be legal. I'd be willing to pay 150 bucks for an 1/8 around here. That's better than doing 1-10 years for an ounce. 

Being ripped off financially is a much better alternative than getting thrown in jail. As I keep saying, it may not help California much but it will definitely give the legalization movement the needed push forward. Bigger picture, look at the bigger picture.


----------



## dam612 (Oct 20, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> So? It will be legal. I'd be willing to pay 150 bucks for an 1/8 around here. That's better than doing 1-10 years for an ounce.
> 
> Being ripped off financially is a much better alternative than getting thrown in jail. As I keep saying, it may not help California much but it will definitely give the legalization movement the needed push forward. Bigger picture, look at the bigger picture.


Ive been blazing for years and have never had and incident with the police. Buy ur bud from friends and dont smk in places where the police is at (keep paraphenalia out of car and dont even blunt cruise)-all u need to do to smk freely. I honestly don't know how people get busted. and i bet u would never pay 150$ for an 1/8th


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

If it is legalized in CA, then CA will become the producer of choice for the backward 47 (Hawaii and Alaska don't count for this analysis). If that happens, then there will not be much of a price drop at all in CA. To achieve the actual market price, it needs to be legal everywhere. Based on this thinking all of you growers here (Beardo, FDD, etc) can relax; you can keep your cushy lifestyles for a long time to come.


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

dam612 said:


> Ive been blazing for years and have never had and incident with the police. Buy ur bud from friends and dont smk in places where the police is at (keep paraphenalia out of car and dont even blunt cruise)-all u need to do to smk freely. I honestly don't know how people get busted. and i bet u would never pay 150$ for an 1/8th


It's more an issue of supply side growers increasing the price due to the risks they take. (police)


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> I don't expect anyone to work for free. How many pounds have you trimmed in your 4 weeks straight of trimming though? And is it really so much of a skill that no one else could possibly do as good of a job for a cheaper price?


Going rate for trimming is about ~$200 a pound. Add around $1000 per pound for electricity/nuts/equipment replacements/etc. Add about $500 for labor during the grow process. And then a little profit on top of that. Yeah, about $2000-$2500 per pound for nice indoor is about right.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

gupp said:


> well, anyone with dirt, some seeds and the sun could grow marijuna, I'm not doubting that. They probably wouldn't do a very good job though without knowing proper water, fertilizer, care.


Yes but that all that information will be available, and you will be able to learn it yourself. Everything takes time to learn how to do properly. 

I can tell you my tomato plants this year were larger, the tomatoes were better, I got more yield per plant, and more yield per unit of area that any of my previous grows. I still didn't get it perfect and will no doubt improve next year. No one in my family has bought tomatoes since mid summer, and they've been eating tomatoes better than store bought. We also made tons of salsa and spaghetti sauce because I had so many bags of tomatoes they were going rotten before they could be eaten or given away. 

I'm not saying everyone will instantly know how to grow and get medical grade out of their first attempt. Most will probably fail. But just as with anything else that error and failure will teach you how to do it properly.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Going rate for trimming is about ~$200 a pound. Add around $1000 per pound for electricity/nuts/equipment replacements/etc. Add about $500 for labor during the grow process. And then a little profit on top of that. Yeah, about $2000-$2500 per pound for nice indoor is about right.


But if it was as legal as tomatoes why spend $1000 per pound on indoor lighting (in addition to the cost of the lamp itself) when you can use sunlight for free? I mean I don't grow anything else indoors, I just can't compete with free sunlight. Even stuff that does grow in my house utilizes 100% free sunlight.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

mrboots said:


> If there is now reason to grow indoors, why does indoor hydro sell for more in the Cali despenaries?


Environmental control would be the reason to grow indoors along with the fact that it's profitable and you can grow several crops per year instead of only one outdoor. 

Hydro sells for more in Cali because it's generally higher quality than bud grow in soil. Now people associate hydro with good quality.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Environmental control would be the reason to grow indoors along with the fact that it's profitable and you can grow several crops per year instead of only one outdoor.
> 
> Hydro sells for more in Cali because it's generally higher quality than bud grow in soil. Now people associate hydro with good quality.


I think if you remove the illegal aspect of it though it would no longer be profitable.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> But if it was as legal as tomatoes why spend $1000 per pound on indoor lighting (in addition to the cost of the lamp itself) when you can use sunlight for free? I mean I don't grow anything else indoors, I just can't compete with free sunlight. Even stuff that does grow in my house utilizes 100% free sunlight.


You can stop mold and bugs (most of the time) indoor as well as Co2. You can control lighting cycles. Generally indoor bud is a higher quality than outdoor. People will pay more for higher quality.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> You can stop mold and bugs (most of the time) indoor as well as Co2. You can control lighting cycles. Generally indoor bud is a higher quality than outdoor. People will pay more for higher quality.


Why can't you create an indoor environment that still lets light in? Like a greenhouse? Even supplement light to it when needed. Free sun for 7 hours, then an additional 5 hours of HID lighting still seems far more economical than 12 hours of HID. 

I have never had a mold problem on anything, but i've had more bug problems indoors than I have ever experienced outside. I have not grown the same plants indoors as outdoors though.


----------



## mrboots (Oct 20, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Because I am a libertarian. The war on drugs is a colossal waste of money and lives. The war on drugs has destroyed the foundation of US law by subverting the bill of rights. I want the war on drugs to end, p19 is a good first step.


Not trying to say you can't be on here. Welcome to RIU. If only smokers voted yes on prop 19, it wouldn't pass, since a majority of people don't smoke. You should burn one when it passes just for the hell of it. lol.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 20, 2010)

mrboots said:


> Not trying to say you can't be on here. Welcome to RIU. If only smokers voted yes on prop 19, it wouldn't pass, since a majority of people don't smoke. You should burn one when it passes just for the hell of it. lol.


Thanks. There are a lot of people who realize that the war on drugs is an absolute catastrophe for the US and the rest of the world, I am one of them. There are also a lot of people who completely buy the propaganda. This proposition is gonna be close, I think. I hope it passes, I did my part.

I think I will pass on burning one, I really prefer sobriety, but I appreciate the thought.


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 20, 2010)

Don't be so navie to think that the Man will not want his cut, and the man will be involved be it the black market or the legal market.

People off the grid will stay off the grid, as long as cash is king.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> Why can't you create an indoor environment that still lets light in? Like a greenhouse? Even supplement light to it when needed. Free sun for 7 hours, then an additional 5 hours of HID lighting still seems far more economical than 12 hours of HID.
> 
> I have never had a mold problem on anything, but i've had more bug problems indoors than I have ever experienced outside. I have not grown the same plants indoors as outdoors though.


No matter how you look at it, it's still one crop a year outdoor vs ~4 indoor.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 20, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No matter how you look at it, it's still one crop a year outdoor vs ~4 indoor.


But I have hundreds of times the space outdoors as indoors, so overall I could yield much much more from a single outdoor crop.


----------



## gupp (Oct 20, 2010)

I've always thought air quality was better outdoors.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

gupp said:


> I've always thought air quality was better outdoors.


Depends on the air. Where I live it's always 60-90% humidity, that's no good. Indoor I can run 2 dehumidifiers as well as jack my Co2 ppm up to ~1400. Can't replicate that outdoor.


----------



## budlover13 (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> But I have hundreds of times the space outdoors as indoors, so overall I could yield much much more from a single outdoor crop.


I'm hoping to harvest every 4-6 weeks once I''m up and running.


----------



## smoke and coke (Oct 20, 2010)

i feel that all my time put into growing, drying and curing enough of the best bud around to last me a year untill the next growing season is priceless!!! so if its legal or not, the price hasnt changed for me lol


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 20, 2010)

guy incognito said:


> But I have hundreds of times the space outdoors as indoors, so overall I could yield much much more from a single outdoor crop.


I see what you're saying and everything, and yeah, in a sealed greenhouse sure, you can replicate indoor environments. You could also do the reverse of that and have a solar powered indoor grow that would out yield a greenhouse of the same size. 

We really aren't talking about home growing here, we are talking about commercial grows. Sure, if you've got a lot of space outdoor you could out yield a smaller indoor space. But if you were a commercial grower you could build a structure with that space that would allow you to out yield that outdoor space. Basically, indoor out yields outdoor per sq ft by a lot over a year.

And yes, if the price of bud drops below $2000 per/lb for good shit, you'll see indoor growing stop. However there is sooooooo much low quality outdoor compared to very little high quality outdoor. Because of this and the demand for high quality, I think we will continue to see indoor growing stay profitable.


----------



## guy incognito (Oct 21, 2010)

budlover13 said:


> I'm hoping to harvest every 4-6 weeks once I''m up and running.


Yeah but each individual plant will still take the full time to harvest. All you are doing is staggering your harvest so you are harvesting half of your full potential every 4 weeks instead of a single full harvest every 8. In the end it all works out, you just get smaller harvests more frequently.


Perhaps my dismissal of the cost of indoor growing was a bit premature. I have crunched the numbers and it does still require a lot of time and energy, though I think the estimates given in this thread are a bit high. Especially if there was absolutely no law or tax in the way to stop people from producing it. Most of the system would be entirely automated, and the parts that require an actual human for quality do not require a very high skill level hence not a high cost. And I also see no reason why a good quality home grow could not be scaled up in size to make it more efficient.

I also think if there were no laws in the way the sheer abundance of weed that would be grown outdoors would yield some pretty high quality stuff. 

Why couldnt you reduce a few pounds into an oil or tincture and spray it on your buds making them more potent? Every ounce of bud you would have would have the equivalent of 6 ounces of bud added to it as hash oil. That would be some potent commercial bud.


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 21, 2010)

Heard on the radio today that the California pot crop alone, the value of its 8.6 million-pound harvest is worth about $14 billion.

The Tax man has a woody.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 21, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> Heard on the radio today that the California pot crop alone, the value of its 8.6 million-pound harvest is worth about $14 billion.
> 
> The Tax man has a woody.


haha I bet he has a little more than a woody.


----------



## valley grower (Oct 21, 2010)

you guys r forgetting one thing if it passes and is legal u r only allowed to have 1 ounce on you. so if u think u van harvest a pound just because its legal think again


----------



## gupp (Oct 21, 2010)

valley grower said:


> you guys r forgetting one thing if it passes and is legal u r only allowed to have 1 ounce on you. so if u think u van harvest a pound just because its legal think again


 An ounce is better than nothing.


----------



## valley grower (Oct 21, 2010)

true but if u have more than that on u theres nothing legal about it


----------



## golddog (Oct 21, 2010)

valley grower said:


> you guys r forgetting one thing if it passes and is legal u r only allowed to have 1 ounce on you. so if u think u van harvest a pound just because its legal think again


That's 1 ounce on your person in a public place, there is no limit on the amount you may have at your residence, as long as your grew it there.

That's how I understand it.


----------



## valley grower (Oct 21, 2010)

oh wow didnt realize u could have pounds at your house as long as u dont take it out on the streets on you im going to have to look into that


----------



## nl3004.kind (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> "I am completely ignoring tax in my assumptions. Any tax that would be included for the production of something like lettuce or tomatoes is small and unavoidable and won't contribute significantly to the final price, at least as far as comparing to other products. A vice tax would/could raise the price substantially, and could very well end up costing the prices people are quoting in here. However I assumed no vice tax at all when I said it would be dirt cheap."
> 
> I think you are absolutely correct. If completely legal, it will be dirt cheap. There is no good reason to grow indoors, except to be covert. At $40 per pound (about $5 per ounce) everybody in the supply chain can make an honest living at it.


i am afraid i completely disagree with your assumption that there will be no sin tax on it... there is no way the governments will overlook this potential huge source of revenue... never... if it gets legalized, it will be taxed to hell and gone. but will still be cheaper (substantially) that currently is... the thing everyone is overlooking is dosage: if one shot/ beer/ glass of wine is the standard measure of dispensation for alcohol, probably weed will be taxed by the gram. not the oz, not the elbow... but by the gram...

also the reason to grow indoors are varied but one reason is to ensure that you have a consistent product over and over again... out in cali there are tiers of pricing: top quality indoor, first growth top quality outdoor, second growth top quality outdoor (usually lower in thc), middies indoor, middies outdoor, popcorn, schwag ect... it is possible to grow year round outdoor in cali, texas, az, new mex, florida *but* the quality of those products are varied and not consistent... the reason dispensaries pay top dollar for indoor is because they know that it will be the same next week, month, year... consistency in meds is of the upmost importance...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

nl3004.kind said:


> i am afraid i completely disagree with your assumption that there will be no sin tax on it... there is no way the governments will overlook this potential huge source of revenue... never... if it gets legalized, it will be taxed to hell and gone. but will still be cheaper (substantially) that currently is... the thing everyone is overlooking is dosage: if one shot/ beer/ glass of wine is the standard measure of dispensation for alcohol, probably weed will be taxed by the gram. not the oz, not the elbow... but by the gram...
> 
> also the reason to grow indoors are varied but one reason is to ensure that you have a consistent product over and over again... out in cali there are tiers of pricing: top quality indoor, first growth top quality outdoor, second growth top quality outdoor (usually lower in thc), middies indoor, middies outdoor, popcorn, schwag ect... it is possible to grow year round outdoor in cali, texas, az, new mex, florida *but* the quality of those products are varied and not consistent... the reason dispensaries pay top dollar for indoor is because they know that it will be the same next week, month, year... consistency in meds is of the upmost importance...


I completely agree there WILL be a sin tax on MJ if 19 passes. The question is, will that make the price of MJ as high as it is now with the illegality premium?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

valley grower said:


> oh wow didnt realize u could have pounds at your house as long as u dont take it out on the streets on you im going to have to look into that


Read the proposition. Read the legal analysis posted at High Times web site. Don't listen to these anti-19 drug warriors on this blog (Beardo, Veggie, FDD, etc), those guys are making a cushy living from the status quo, and don't give a shit that innocent people are going to prison to support their lifestyles. Shame on them.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I completely agree there WILL be a sin tax on MJ if 19 passes. The question is, will that make the price of MJ as high as it is now with the illegality premium?


No. But prices won't be as low as you're thinking either. It's impossible to produce a pound + have a moderate profit for $40 as you suggested before. Trimming alone costs $200 per pound. If you want high quality stuff you're going to have to take care of it and feed the plants decent nutrients. You will NEVER see pounds of high quality stuff for under $1000 per pound IMO.


----------



## dam612 (Oct 21, 2010)

im sure its will be taxed, cali is what 19.3 billion in debt!?!?!, u best believe they will be taxing


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

dam612 said:


> im sure its will be taxed, cali is what 19.3 billion in debt!?!?!, u best believe they will be taxing


Agreed. Damn, that is a nice avatar!!!


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> No. But prices won't be as low as you're thinking either. It's impossible to produce a pound + have a moderate profit for $40 as you suggested before. Trimming alone costs $200 per pound. If you want high quality stuff you're going to have to take care of it and feed the plants decent nutrients. You will NEVER see pounds of high quality stuff for under $1000 per pound IMO.


You might be right, I have no experience to back up my guess work.


----------



## angelsbandit (Oct 21, 2010)

Even if it passes the Federal Government will be a thorn in the side of California, and will block this for years.
They have already said they will not honor California's law if passed.

*""We will vigorously enforce the [federal Controlled Substances Act] against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," the Times quoted Holder as writing in a letter to former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration who had lobbied for the Obama administration to oppose Proposition 19"*


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

angelsbandit said:


> Even if it passes the Federal Government will be a thorn in the side of California, and will block this for years.
> They have already said they will not honor California's law if passed.
> 
> *""We will vigorously enforce the [federal Controlled Substances Act] against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," the Times quoted Holder as writing in a letter to former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration who had lobbied for the Obama administration to oppose Proposition 19"*


True, but that is no reason to vote against 19, that is all the more reason to vote for 19. We need to end the drug war, and that will only be done by the people because the politicians are too cowardly and the drug warriors are too invested. We need to provoke a showdown with the federal government over this issue to get the ball rolling.


----------



## angelsbandit (Oct 21, 2010)

Most Americans still oppose legalized Marijuana, until that changes the Federal Government will not change it's stance.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

angelsbandit said:


> Most Americans still oppose legalized Marijuana, until that changes the Federal Government will not change it's stance.


So what? Legalize it in CA and see what happens in the other states.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You might be right, I have no experience to back up my guess work.


I've done hydro, dirt, indoor, outdoor, greenhouse. I'm positive. Just nutrient/soil costs + trimming put you around $500 per pound. Even doing outdoor if you add in labor costs for growing it, property costs, etc you're probably around $750 per pound minimum. Commercial larger scale growing isn't the same thing as throwing a few plants in your back yard and basically growing them for free. There are a lot more things to consider when you grow on a larger scale for the purpose of putting out a sell-able product. 

You could produce pounds cheaper than that, but the quality wouldn't be anything California market would be interested in.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 21, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I've done hydro, dirt, indoor, outdoor, greenhouse. I'm positive. Just nutrient/soil costs + trimming put you around $500 per pound. Even doing outdoor if you add in labor costs for growing it, property costs, etc you're probably around $750 per pound minimum. Commercial larger scale growing isn't the same thing as throwing a few plants in your back yard and basically growing them for free. There are a lot more things to consider when you grow on a larger scale for the purpose of putting out a sell-able product.
> 
> You could produce pounds cheaper than that, but the quality wouldn't be anything California market would be interested in.


I will defer to your experience in the matter.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 21, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Read the proposition. Read the legal analysis posted at High Times web site. Don't listen to these anti-19 drug warriors on this blog (Beardo, Veggie, FDD, etc), those guys are making a cushy living from the status quo, and don't give a shit that innocent people are going to prison to support their lifestyles. Shame on them.


who exactly is going to prison to support my lifestyle? med patients?


----------



## BluffinCali (Oct 21, 2010)

You actually think that indoor pot is worth 4x what outdoor pot is worth, thats just funny, I mean there is for sure more of a demand for indoor weed, but the price will be relative to quality, where and how its grown will be a small determining factor. I bet the common person right now would be surprised at the amount of outdoor weed that is passed of as indoor just because of the higher demands and lack of understanding...nothing beats the sun, as long as you have a clean evirionment.


----------



## BluffinCali (Oct 21, 2010)

It doesnt matter anyways, Prop19 isnt going to pass, not enough support in the medical community for it really to have a chance...My opinion is we still be better off waiting until 2012 for the JH legislation...although Im basicly against prop19, in a weird way I wouldnt mind if it passed, assuming that all these positive assumptions about its effects are correct, only time will tell, but lets all hope for the best regardless of what happens...Happy harvesting, Peace!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

BluffinCali said:


> It doesnt matter anyways, Prop19 isnt going to pass, not enough support in the medical community for it really to have a chance...My opinion is we still be better off waiting until 2012 for the JH legislation...although Im basicly against prop19, in a weird way I wouldnt mind if it passed, assuming that all these positive assumptions about its effects are correct, only time will tell, but lets all hope for the best regardless of what happens...Happy harvesting, Peace!


very well said... there is pros and cons to it passing or not paasing.... all we can do is hurry up and wait...lol


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

The feds won't support 19, but that doesn't mean that the feds supported 215 when it first started either. Look what's happening now. It's not like the feds are going to waste their time going after small time growers either, especially since the local law enforcement won't be able to help them. Sure, the initial big grows will be taken down, but they will keep popping up afterwards. Bud legalization is like herpes, once it gets in the system it's not going away.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> The feds won't support 19, but that doesn't mean that the feds supported 215 when it first started either. Look what's happening now. It's not like the feds are going to waste their time going after small time growers either, especially since the local law enforcement won't be able to help them. Sure, the initial big grows will be taken down, but they will keep popping up afterwards. Bud legalization is like herpes, once it gets in the system it's not going away.


they will get raided until the election of 2012 that is for sure.... obama can not risk looking even more out of control if he even stands a chance at getting reelected.... its all politics bro.... they can find a 100 million dollars in one of there bail out programs easily to through at this issue, as well as fight it legally.... it wont be a walk in the park that is for sure... i do feel bad for those folks that are gonna start warehouse grows, cause they will get popped and charged for atleast the next 3-5 years.... talk about loosing everything...


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 21, 2010)

Eh, the people supporting it seem super confident that they're going to win the lawsuit, I personally don't think they will, but hey, less attention toward my grow and more toward that warehouse makes me a happy camper!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 21, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> Eh, the people supporting it seem super confident that they're going to win the lawsuit, I personally don't think they will, but hey, less attention toward my grow and more toward that warehouse makes me a happy camper!


no doubt... they aint gonna win in these times, maybe when times are good, but not in the current political climate....


----------



## gupp (Oct 22, 2010)

valley grower said:


> oh wow didnt realize u could have pounds at your house as long as u dont take it out on the streets on you im going to have to look into that


It's right here if you have not read it. (section 11300 , 3rd clause)
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_"Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010"_(California)
Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

section a ii is just saying that you can grow in a 25 square foot area.

I feel like a lawyer now.


----------



## LetricBud (Oct 22, 2010)

I would say that it depends upon what was put into it...Like any other commodity.

You gotta add up seed price, equipment price, nutrient prices, etc...then also man hours.

I would say that it would probably stay around the same price....$200-$300 per ounce.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> who exactly is going to prison to support my lifestyle? med patients?


Almost 80,000 arrests in California last year. Some of them went to jail, some of them got a misdemeanor on their record that stays with them for the rest of their lives, some got a felony. If you are voting against 19 just to keep the price high, then those 80,000 are on your conscience.


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 22, 2010)

> Almost 80,000 arrests in California last year. Some of them went to jail, some of them got a misdemeanor on their record that stays with them for the rest of their lives, some got a felony. If you are voting against 19 just to keep the price high, then those 80,000 are on your conscience.


He's actually said before that he's voting against 19 because he doesn't agree with the taxation. The price wouldn't go down immediately, in fact, most growers would be able to benefit initially because people would stop being pussies and actually buy an ounce.

I am personally for 19, because I do not plan on buying the taxed weed anyway. Though people claim there are new felonies with 19 I'm pretty sure those felonies have been in place since 2000, except for the one that adds jail time for a 21+ selling to a 17-, which I don't really mind. That just eliminates the losers selling at high-schools imo.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 22, 2010)

mccumcumber said:


> He's actually said before that he's voting against 19 because he doesn't agree with the taxation. The price wouldn't go down immediately, in fact, most growers would be able to benefit initially because people would stop being pussies and actually buy an ounce.
> 
> I am personally for 19, because I do not plan on buying the taxed weed anyway. Though people claim there are new felonies with 19 I'm pretty sure those felonies have been in place since 2000, except for the one that adds jail time for a 21+ selling to a 17-, which I don't really mind. That just eliminates the losers selling at high-schools imo.


Completely agree.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Almost 80,000 arrests in California last year. Some of them went to jail, some of them got a misdemeanor on their record that stays with them for the rest of their lives, some got a felony. If you are voting against 19 just to keep the price high, then those 80,000 are on your conscience.


no they are not... i was one of the 80000 dick head... dont speak for a whole group of people... its not working out for you... i was busted and am still voting NO... what the hell is your excuse for having no backbone....


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> no they are not... i was one of the 80000 dick head... dont speak for a whole group of people... its not working out for you... i was busted and am still voting NO... what the hell is your excuse for having no backbone....


Oh and news flash, they are very little people actually doing REAL time under solely MJ possesion... There is always something on there record before, or something else found while the MJ was found.... get your facts correct homeboy...


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Oh and news flash, they are very little people actually doing REAL time under solely MJ possesion... There is always something on there record before, or something else found while the MJ was found.... get your facts correct homeboy...


There are 15,000 people who've been sent to jail on simple possession. As far as I'm concerned 1 is too many and we should keep trying to end prohibition until that number reaches zero.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> There are 15,000 people who've been sent to jail on simple possession. As far as I'm concerned 1 is too many and we should keep trying to end prohibition until that number reaches zero.


Amen.

I don't know if 19 will pass, but reading this blog is discouraging. Some of the very people who ought to be the biggest supporters, the smokers and small growers, have somehow come to believe that 19 is a bad thing for them. 

On the bright side, the readers of this website don't amount to a fart in a hurricane with respect to 19, this issue will be decided by the overall electorate and most of them have no vested interest in MJ either way. If they are persuaded that the drug war is a failure, then 19 will pass.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> Oh and news flash, they are very little people actually doing REAL time under solely MJ possesion... There is always something on there record before, or something else found while the MJ was found.... get your facts correct homeboy...


What the fuck is "real time"? One night in jail is too god damn much. A $100 fine is too much. As long as pot is illegal, there will be the criminal's premium on it, and as long as there is big money to be made we will have the cartels killing people. Too high a price to pay for me.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> no they are not... i was one of the 80000 dick head... dont speak for a whole group of people... its not working out for you... i was busted and am still voting NO... what the hell is your excuse for having no backbone....


I already voted yes. You, on the other hand, are planning to vote no, just like the current and past drug czars, the US Attorney General, and Sheriff Lee Baca want you to. I think your backbone is wrapped in thick wad of drug-war cash to keep it straight.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> There are 15,000 people who've been sent to jail on simple possession. As far as I'm concerned 1 is too many and we should keep trying to end prohibition until that number reaches zero.


I agree, but this is not the way... i know it in my heart man.... with resent polls, i believe many others are starting to feel that way...


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

90 percent of US money has cocaine on it.... the cartels will still have that, meth, LSD, MJ as well as firearms, controlling the gangs, human trafficing etc.... there are studies that show that prop19 will not effect anything.... i knew this before the study, but now there is a study that does show this.... Honestly, do you think its gonna stop violence, if anything, they will fight harder for the money because there will be less for everyone.... less money, people get even more ruthless man...

Oh, and dont be such a pussy about 1 night in jail.... its a ticket now, so you can finally sleep easily at night... lets get a prop that makes it legal to grow as many plants, pounds and carry as much as you want... otherwise, people will still get arrested if they have 10 pounds on them etc.... and thats the truth, because there still will be a premium on criminals after this... that is a quote from you... your thoughts?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude:

me and over 75 people are all having a super smoke session before we march to the polls bro.... 

but you are so right man.... i love how you think that anybody that opposes this shitty prop19, that promotes corporations, is siding with all these people you have stated above... The internet is a funny thing bro, you say things on here, that I know for a fact you would not say to my face.... if you said that shit to any of me or my family, or alot of down to earth grounded people, it would not go over well for anybody.... Know your role man, quit writing checks that you know you cant cash....


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> 90 percent of US money has cocaine on it.... the cartels will still have that, meth, LSD, MJ as well as firearms, controlling the gangs, human trafficing etc.... there are studies that show that prop19 will not effect anything.... i knew this before the study, but now there is a study that does show this.... Honestly, do you think its gonna stop violence, if anything, they will fight harder for the money because there will be less for everyone.... less money, people get even more ruthless man...
> 
> Oh, and dont be such a pussy about 1 night in jail.... its a ticket now, so you can finally sleep easily at night... lets get a prop that makes it legal to grow as many plants, pounds and carry as much as you want... otherwise, people will still get arrested if they have 10 pounds on them etc.... and thats the truth, because there still will be a premium on criminals after this... that is a quote from you... your thoughts?


I am with you on making it legal, period. I would like a proposition that says, "grow as much as you, hell grow twice as much as you want and sell the excess for whatever profit you can make". Unfortunately, that is not what prop 19 says, and prop 19 is all we have at this time. If there is a better proposition on the ballot in 2012 I will vote for that one too.

Prop 19 will make it legal for the everyday Joe to buy it or grow enough for his personal consumption. That is a pretty good step in the right direction.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I am with you on making it legal, period. I would like a proposition that says, "grow as much as you, hell grow twice as much as you want and sell the excess for whatever profit you can make". Unfortunately, that is not what prop 19 says, and prop 19 is all we have at this time. If there is a better proposition on the ballot in 2012 I will vote for that one too.
> 
> Prop 19 will make it legal for the everyday Joe to buy it or grow enough for his personal consumption. That is a pretty good step in the right direction.


it would be a good step in the right direction, but to the detriment of many people, a prop like this doesnt do anything for people that are already in jail, or shit is pending... what about those people, you havnt even mentioned them at all... but a better prop could say that anybody that is incarcerated at the moment would be released and pardoned.... lets take care of those people first, then worry about your one ounce or the next person that gets arrested.... dont forget about those people...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

nathenking said:


> it would be a good step in the right direction, but to the detriment of many people, a prop like this doesnt do anything for people that are already in jail, or shit is pending... what about those people, you havnt even mentioned them at all... but a better prop could say that anybody that is incarcerated at the moment would be released and pardoned.... lets take care of those people first, then worry about your one ounce or the next person that gets arrested.... dont forget about those people...


I agree, I would like to see anybody with a past conviction, or with a case pending against them, or currently in prison completely exonerated. The fact that P19 has no such language is not a good reason to vote against it, though. How is P19 a detriment to people convicted in the past or currently serving time, they are unaffected whether it passes or not? If a new initiative comes up in 2012 with those provisions, I will vote for it. Right now, all we have is P19 and it is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 22, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I am with you on making it legal, period. I would like a proposition that says, "grow as much as you, hell grow twice as much as you want and sell the excess for whatever profit you can make". Unfortunately, that is not what prop 19 says, and prop 19 is all we have at this time. If there is a better proposition on the ballot in 2012 I will vote for that one too.
> 
> Prop 19 will make it legal for the everyday Joe to buy it or grow enough for his personal consumption. That is a pretty good step in the right direction.


I'm into that. I'd prefer a law that lets people grow as much as they want with no conditions. But that isn't on the ballot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Maybe someday we will have the political climate to pass that law, but today is not that day. Ending prohibition will be a struggle and it will not come all at once. One step at a time. Prop 19 is that first step.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 22, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm into that. I'd prefer a law that lets people grow as much as they want with no conditions. But that isn't on the ballot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Maybe someday we will have the political climate to pass that law, but today is not that day. Ending prohibition will be a struggle and it will not come all at once. One step at a time. Prop 19 is that first step.


I agree with you. I plan to vote in 2012 and hope to see a ballot initiative that takes things further, but right now P19 is all we got.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 23, 2010)

Better a handful of shit, than nothing?


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 23, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Better a handful of shit, than nothing?


It's only a handful of shit to those who stand to lose profits. I guarantee if you weren't a MMJ Grower you'd vote yes.


----------



## luvourmother (Oct 23, 2010)

nathenking said:


> I agree, but this is not the way... i know it in my heart man.... with resent polls, i believe many others are starting to feel that way...



what are your actual reasons for opposing 19?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 23, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> It's only a handful of shit to those who stand to lose profits. I guarantee if you weren't a MMJ Grower you'd vote yes.


i know a lot of NON growers voting NO. 





Majority of voters oppose Prop. 19, new poll shows 

By: CNN's Alison Harding
*(CNN)* - A new poll indicates that a majority of likely voters in California oppose the state's proposition to legalize marijuana. 
According to a USC/Los Angeles Times Poll, 51 percent of likely voters said they would vote against Proposition 19, which would allow people 21 years-old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters said they support the measure.

Support for the ballot initiative also varies widely by age and race, according to the poll. Fifty-five percent of likely voters aged 18-29 said they support the measure, while 60 percent of those over the age of 65 oppose legalizing marijuana. Only 28 percent of those 65 and older said they support the measure. Latino voters indicated the strongest opposition to Prop 19. Fifty-seven percent said they opposed the measure, compared to 48 percent of white voters, and 49 percent of black voters. 
Proponents of Prop 19 say it would generate much needed revenue and cut drug enforcement costs. The California Attorney General's office estimated that the measure has the potential to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars annually in taxes and fees, while saving the state tens of millions of dollars annually on costs related to incarceration and supervision of marijuana offenders.
But opponents, including the U.S. Justice Department and former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, say the measure violates federal law and endangers public safety. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that the Justice Department will continue to enforce federal law regardless of the outcome of the ballot initiative. Federal law prohibits individuals and organizations from possessing, manufacturing, or distributing marijuana for recreational use.
The USC/LA Times poll was conducted by the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, in conjunction with Republican polling firm American Viewpoint. It surveyed more than 1,500 registered voters from October 13-20, with a likely voter sample of 878 voters.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

I think the growers vote almost doesn't matter, there aren't enough of them to make a difference either way. This vote is going to be decided by the every day, 9 to 5 Joe, he doesn't smoke pot anymore, he probably tried it at one point but is now consumed with his hum-drum, feed the kids and pay the mortgage life. Personally, that is the way I prefer it. If 19 fails, I can live with that.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 23, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Better a handful of shit, than nothing?


No. Better the arms full that you can grow legally, than the bucket of shit we are stuck in now.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> No. Better the arms full that you can grow legally, than the bucket of shit we are stuck in now.


Get a recommendation and you can grow all you can justify, and I've justified my grow to the authorities under current law.

Prop 19 changes that.

I live in a nice suburb.

My neighbors are retired LEOs.

We don't bother them, and they tolerate us.

A few asked my thoughts about P19.

I explained my NO vote.

How they vote is up to them.

At least they have my honest opinion.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Get a recommendation and you can grow all you can justify, and I've justified my grow to the authorities under current law.
> 
> Prop 19 changes that.
> 
> ...


No, prop 19 does not change your immunities under existing MMJ laws. P19 specifics exempts existing MMJ laws. You have a right to your own opinion on this matter, but you don't have a right to your own facts.


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> No, prop 19 does not change your immunities under existing MMJ laws. P19 specifics exempts existing MMJ laws. You have a right to your own opinion on this matter, but you don't have a right to your own facts.


veggie likes making up stuff about prop 19.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> veggie likes making up stuff about prop 19.


Never let a liar have the last word.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> No, prop 19 does not change your immunities under existing MMJ laws. P19 specifics exempts existing MMJ laws. You have a right to your own opinion on this matter, but you don't have a right to your own facts.


your not a lawyer, nor not a politician, you cant even assume that bro... you guys get over this shit seriously... they pulled the wool over your eyes, dont try to pull over ours... we got 3 eyes homeboy....


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> veggie likes making up stuff about prop 19.


as do the both of you... your do not have precognative abilities... you dont know what "really" will happen... all you can do is speculate... no matter what the words say in the bill.... it leaves open way to much.... bad men will always find loop holes in this Law...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

nathenking said:


> as do the both of you... your do not have precognative abilities... you dont know what "really" will happen... all you can do is speculate... no matter what the words say in the bill.... it leaves open way to much.... bad men will always find loop holes in this Law...


I have no doubt that if P19 passes a whole lot of bad men will try to thwart it. Hell, they have already said they will, see Steve Cooley's comments, see Lee Baca's comments. Douche bags like the RC city council have already said they are going to thumb their noses at CA constitution. Do you think any legalization measure won't be met with those types of responses?

Seeing all of the usual bad actors come out against P19 makes me believe they are running scared. Doesn't it give you just a moments pause to know that you are voting just like they want you to?


----------



## Xiphos (Oct 24, 2010)

A pack of cigarettes has an oz of tobacco, so a pack of joints will have an oz of bud and probably sell for the exact same price with about 5% THC. This bud will be grown outside as a bi product of hemp. A pound would be probably just as much as a pound of tobacco..

The indoor flame weed will still be in demand and you will get it from the dispenseraries it will drop considerably tho to 25 an oz or $5/8th wit 20%+ THC

Just my 2 cents


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

not even close....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

elementary school teachers will go to work stoned.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> elementary school teachers will go to work stoned.


Uh, umm, er, Huh?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Uh, umm, er, Huh?


if prop 19 passes school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED. there is no way to prove otherwise. pot stays in your system for up to a month. how will they know joe pilot didn't blaze one on the way to the airport? 


can't see past the ounce in YOUR pocket, can you?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> if prop 19 passes school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED. there is no way to prove otherwise. pot stays in your system for up to a month. how will they know joe pilot didn't blaze one on the way to the airport?
> 
> 
> can't see past the ounce in YOUR pocket, can you?


Geesh, this is a new low FDD. You really have joined the dark side. This is a straight up talking point from the prohibitionists. Nice to know who I am dealing with.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Geesh, this is a new low FDD. You really have joined the dark side. This is a straight up talking point from the prohibitionists. Nice to know who I am dealing with.


so you deny this will happen?


----------



## thegersman (Oct 24, 2010)

The Beatles eplained it:

Let me tell you how it will be; 
There's one for you, nineteen for me. 
'Cause Im the taxman, 
Yeah, Im the taxman. 

Should five per cent appear too small, 
Be thankful I don't take it all. 
'Cause Im the taxman, 
Yeah, Im the taxman. 

(if you drive a car, car - Ill tax the street; 
(if you try to sit, sit - Ill tax your seat; 
(if you get too cold, cold - Ill tax the heat; 
(if you take a walk, walk - I'll tax your feet. 

Taxman! 

'Cause Im the taxman, 
Yeah, Im the taxman.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> so you deny this will happen?


Do you think testing positive for MJ metabolites in your system means you are currently stoned?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> if prop 19 passes school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED. there is no way to prove otherwise. *pot stays in your system for up to a month.* how will they know joe pilot didn't blaze one on the way to the airport?
> 
> 
> can't see past the ounce in YOUR pocket, can you?





desert dude said:


> Do you think testing positive for MJ metabolites in your system means you are currently stoned?



do you pay attention to what you are even replying to?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> do you pay attention to what you are even replying to?


So, you seem to agree that if somebody smoked a joint last month he should not be allowed to work. Is that right?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> So, you seem to agree that if somebody smoked a joint last month he should not be allowed to work. Is that right?



pretty sure i never said that.

this isn't about me. it's about stoned people who are responsible for the well being of others.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> pretty sure i never said that.



You can't have it both ways. "elementary school teachers will go to work stoned."... " there is no way to prove otherwise..."

If an elementary school teacher smoked a joint on Saturday night, should he be allowed to teach class on Monday?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You can't have it both ways. "elementary school teachers will go to work stoned."... " there is no way to prove otherwise..."
> 
> If an elementary school teacher smoked a joint on Saturday night, should he be allowed to teach class on Monday?


yes. if he/she smoked saturday they are OK to teach on monday. 

if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work? 

do i really have to explain this to you?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yes. if he/she smoked saturday they are OK to teach on monday.
> 
> if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work?
> 
> do i really have to explain this to you?


How will you prove he/she didn't rob a bank on the way to work, jack off in the back seat, or have impure thoughts?

Obviously, medical types need to develop a blood/pee test that shows actual THC content in the blood stream. That seems fair to me, actually having to prove current intoxication before you punish an employee. A pee test that shows that the teacher smoked pot sometime in the last month is not enough to discipline if you are interested in a fair society. If you are not interested in a fair society, well then you are left with our current system.

No, I don't think any employer should be forced to allow anybody to work while intoxicated. It seems to me that an employer should have to prove intoxication to fire somebody, though. That leaves the school administrators in the uncomfortable position of having to actually have a valid reason to fire/discipline a teacher, you know like impaired abilities or obvious signs of intoxication. Oh my God, they are actually going to have to have more than accusations, the world will end!


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

are you trying to mock me in an insulting manner? 

why?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> are you trying to mock me in an insulting manner?
> 
> why?


No, of course not. Just showing the absurdity of your position: "all the teachers, and doctors, and fork lift operators are going to come to work stoned if P19 passes".


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> elementary school teachers will go to work stoned.


I'm not sure if you're serious with this statement. If you are, I feel bad for you. If you aren't lol, good one.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> No, of course not. Just showing the absurdity of your position: "all the teachers, and doctors, and fork lift operators are going to come to work stoned if P19 passes".


now where did i say "all"? 

you can't fathom a logical discussion. it's a shame.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> I'm not sure if you're serious with this statement. If you are, I feel bad for you. If you aren't lol, good one.


do you deny the statement?


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yes. if he/she smoked saturday they are OK to teach on monday.
> 
> if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work?
> 
> do i really have to explain this to you?


It's really sad that you do...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> yes. if he/she smoked saturday they are OK to teach on monday.
> 
> if he/she smoked a joint monday morning should he/she be able to teach monday morning? how will you prove he/she didn't smoke on the way to work?
> 
> do i really have to explain this to you?


By your reasoning the teacher is obviously NOT OK to teach on Monday, or Tuesday, or most likely any day in the next month after smoking on Saturday because she will have MJ metabolites in her system, i.e. she is "stoned" according to your definition.

FDD, I know you oppose P19, but you have gone off the deep end with this "grade school teachers will be stoned because they can't prove they are not" crap. This is the lowest form of drug war non-sense, and I hope it is beneath you. 

Can you pass a drug test? I would guess not, judging by your posts. Should you be denied a right to make a living because you smoke pot in your free time?


----------



## abudsmoker (Oct 24, 2010)

mr2shim said:


> At first, I'm sure the prices will still be very high, but once you get more production prices will drop. To what? I'm not sure, probably double what tobacco sells for.


sounds like cali


----------



## abudsmoker (Oct 24, 2010)

many people in these positions right now work under the influence a new bill likely will not change this


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> By your reasoning the teacher is obviously NOT OK to teach on Monday, or Tuesday, or most likely any day in the next month after smoking on Saturday because she will have MJ metabolites in her system, i.e. she is "stoned" according to your definition.
> 
> FDD, I know you oppose P19, but you have gone off the deep end with this "grade school teachers will be stoned because they can't prove they are not" crap. This is the lowest form of drug war non-sense, and I hope it is beneath you.
> 
> Can you pass a drug test? I would guess not, judging by your posts. Should you be denied a right to make a living because you smoke pot in your free time?


i never reasoned or defined anything. it is you who keeps making up your own arguments.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

abudsmoker said:


> many people in these positions right now work under the influence a new bill likely will not change this


right now it is illegal.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i never reasoned or defined anything. it is you who keeps making up your own arguments.


Anything to make a buck I guess. You got yours, fuck everybody else.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Do you think testing positive for MJ metabolites in your system means you are currently stoned?


I had a long talk over breakfast with a friend who employs 200 people in his factory.

He is VERY unhappy about Prop 19 because it creates a situation he isn't prepared to address.

His workplace is a dangerous place. A lot of heat and chemicals. He has spent millions making it as safe as possible for his employees.

His insurance companies won't be happy if he retains an employee who has had an accident, and shows positive for THC metabolites. He spends a lot of money training these people, and doesn't want to lose even one.

If 19 passes, he'll be forced to include random testing to his current pre employment, and post accident testing to keep his workforce free of the damning metabolite.

He's an old stoner, and hates the idea of having to INCREASE his control over employees' personal lives. Yet, who wants to pay millions more in premiums?

You slap happy pro P19 folks might find yourselves less employed in a year if you think "legalization" won't affect your livelihoods.

Honestly, I think I've found a possible solution, but need to talk to some experts(biochemists) before I can go forward.

You "legal" smokers will hate it, but it will save your jobs, if my idea proves viable.

Anyway, I've voted NO, because too many issues are left unresolved.

Had even one person been able to show me language explicitly protecting medical grows from the 25 square foot limit, I'd have voted yes. You can't because you refuse to do the necessary reading.

You P19 cheerleaders kept ignoring my points in favor of just promising that it would get "fixed" by the state legislators. The same guys that can't get a budget passed on time.

I hope you work for my old friend.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i never reasoned or defined anything. it is you who keeps making up your own arguments.


I agree. You never reasoned anything. Anything to make a buck, fuck everybody else.


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> if prop 19 passes school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED. there is no way to prove otherwise. pot stays in your system for up to a month. how will they know joe pilot didn't blaze one on the way to the airport?
> 
> 
> can't see past the ounce in YOUR pocket, can you?


this is true. It is a statement of fact. And is as or more valid of a point than when the pro 19 croud tries to say 19 will hurt cartels or that when you vote no your voting with the mormons


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> I had a long talk over breakfast with a friend who employs 200 people in his factory.
> 
> He is VERY unhappy about Prop 19 because it creates a situation he isn't prepared to address.
> 
> ...


So, you are cool with the "metabolites means you are stoned" thinking?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Anything to make a buck I guess. You got yours, fuck everybody else.


and now this? 

your bring a lot of good points to the table. 

if you can't debate them, insult them.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

beardo said:


> this is true. It is a statement of fact. And is as or more valid of a point than when the pro 19 croud tries to say 19 will hurt cartels or that when you vote no your voting with the mormons


So passing P19 will cause, "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." All of them stoned on the job because P19 passes.

During these days of discussion on this and other threads I thought you no-on-prop-19 guys were just self-interested and wanted to keep your sleep-till-noon drug dealer lifestyles, but I see you are really much worse than that.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> right now it is illegal.


and it will be illegal under P19 as well.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> So passing P19 will cause, "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." All of them stoned on the job because P19 passes.
> 
> During these days of discussion on this and other threads I thought you no-on-prop-19 guys were just self-interested and wanted to keep your sleep-till-noon drug dealer lifestyles, but I see you are really much worse than that.



who said anything about "all" of them? why do you keep blowing things out of proportion instead of just addressing the current issue we are speaking about. it is a legitimate issue. whether you accept it or not.

all you can do is insult us. you have nothing else.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> and it will be illegal under P19 as well.


where does it say that?


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> and it will be illegal under P19 as well.


 No because you could use it recreationaly so it would complicate work testing. a pilot can drink on his night off but cant fly drunk and it is easy to prove alcohol levels


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> who said anything about "all" of them? why do you keep blowing things out of proportion instead of just addressing the current issue we are speaking about. it is a legitimate issue. whether you accept it or not.
> 
> all you can do is insult us. you have nothing else.


You did, and I quote: "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." Is that a misquote? It was cut/paste.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

beardo said:


> No because you could use it recreationaly so it would complicate work testing. a pilot can drink on his night off but cant fly drunk and it is easy to prove alcohol levels


Just because testing is complicated doesn't legitimize punishing people for smoking a joint last week. Beardo, you are a doper, do you get stoned at work?


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just because testing is complicated doesn't legitimize punishing people for smoking a joint last week. Beardo, you are a doper, do you get stoned at work?


For how old you are, I would expect a lot more intelligence and class... Guess not... If this law gets passed or not, your still up shit creek with out a paddle there bub...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just because testing is complicated doesn't legitimize punishing people for smoking a joint last week. Beardo, you are a doper, do you get stoned at work?


who said anything about punishment?

you have no idea of the point we are trying to make.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> So, you are cool with the "metabolites means you are stoned" thinking?


Grow up.

Try to put yourself in the employer's place.

Do you know Dr. Ethan Russo?

I've never met him, but did have an extended dialog with him about this. He knows as much about Cannabis and its effects as anyone on the planet.

There is currently NO WAY to distinguish between someone who burned an hour, or a month ago.

Until this changes, insurers are going to be the masters of our universe. They control the job market(who gets hired and fired) as surely as gravity.

I went to work "dirty" for most of 40 years, but NEVER stoned(my jobs were uniformly dangerous). I never had an accident and and luckily was never tested randomly. Mostly I avoided companies that included random testing in their employee agreement.

I learned a lot about corporate Cannabis policy when I was sent to a job that(unbeknownst to me) required a drug test before stepping on site. I presented my recommendation. They told me quite calmly that they would not accept it. I quit my job, and went to work for a non testing company the following day. I was fortunate to have some good friends.

So no, I'm not "cool" with it, but I'm a grown up and understand that our money driven society is very slow to understand "right" is sometimes better than "profitable".

Do you understand?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You did, and I quote: "school teachers, bus drivers, day care workers, nurses and DR's will all be going to work STONED." Is that a misquote? It was cut/paste.



i meant people from "all of those groups", i did not mean "every single one of those people". sorry for any confusion.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

A few professors of law support prop 19. I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010):

* Opinion of Law Professors*

* Yes on 19*

Law professors from across America wrote an open letter to California voters to express their support for Proposition 19. Here is their letter: To the Voters of California:[84] 
"As law professors at many law schools who focus on various areas of legal scholarship, we write this open letter to encourage a wholesale rethinking of marijuana policy in this country, and to endorse the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative&#8212;Proposition 19&#8212;that will be voted on in November in California. 
For decades, our country has pursued a wasteful and ineffective policy of marijuana prohibition. As with alcohol prohibition, this approach has failed to control marijuana, and left its trade in the hands of an unregulated and increasingly violent black market. At the same time, marijuana prohibition has clogged California&#8217;s courts alone with tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana offenders each year. Yet marijuana remains as available as ever, with teens reporting that it is easier for them to buy than alcohol across the country. 
Proposition 19 would remove criminal penalties for private use and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by adults and allow California localities to adopt&#8212;if they choose&#8212;measures to regulate commerce in marijuana. Passage of Proposition 19 would be an important next step toward adopting an approach more grounded in reason, for California and beyond. 
Our communities would be better served if the criminal justice resources we currently spend to investigate, arrest, and prosecute people for marijuana offenses each year were redirected toward addressing unsolved violent crimes. In short, the present policy is causing more harm than good, and is eroding respect for the law. 
Moreover, we are deeply troubled by the consistent and dramatic reports of disproportionate enforcement of marijuana laws against young people of color. Marijuana laws were forged in racism, and have been demonstrated to be inconsistently and unfairly applied since their inception. These are independent reasons for their repeal. 
Especially in the current economic climate, we must evaluate the efficacy of expensive government programs and make responsible decisions about the use of state resources. We find the present policies toward marijuana to be bankrupt, and urge their rethinking. 
This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November. 
Sincerely, 


 Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
 Ty Alper, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA
 Hadar Aviram, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
 W. David Ball, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Randy Barnett, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
 Tom W. Bell, Chapman Law School, Orange, CA
 Steve Berenson, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
 Eric Berger, University of Nebraska, College of Law, Lincoln, NE
 Douglas A. Berman, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
 David E. Bernstein, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
 Ash Bhagwat, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
 Richard Boldt, University of Maryland School of Law, Baltimore, MD
 Connor Bridges, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
 Pamela Bridgewater, American University Washington College of Law, Washington, DC
 Christopher Bryant, University of Cincinnati College of Law, Cincinnati, Ohio
 Sande Buhai, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
 Paul Butler,George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
 Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine, CA
 Gabriel J. Chin, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ
 Marjorie Cohn, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
 Mary Culbert, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
 Angela J. Davis, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC
 Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA
 J. Herbie DiFonzo, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
 Steven Duke, Yale Law School, New Haven, CT
 Elizabeth Price Foley, Florida International University College of Law, Miami, FL
 Eric M. Freedman, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
 David Friedman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Mary Ellen Gale, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, CA
 Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Casey William Hardison, University of Idaho School of Law, Moscow, ID
 Bill Ong Hing, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
 Paige Kaneb, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Madeline June Kass, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
 Alice Kaswan, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
 Alex Kreit, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
 Ellen Kreitzberg, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 David Levine, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
 Jerry Lopez, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
 Elizabeth Loftus, University of California, Irvine, CA
 Erik Luna, Washington and Lee University School of Law, Lexington, VA
 Michael Madow, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY
 Leigh Maddox, University of Maryland, School of Law, Baltimore, MD
 Charles Marvin, Georgia State University College of Law, Atlanta, GA
 Lawrence C. Marshall, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA
 David N. Mayer, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH
 Tracy L. McGaugh, Touro Law Center, Central Islip, NY
 Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama, School of Law, Tuscaloosa, AL
 Christopher Newman, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
 Michelle Oberman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Tamara R. Piety, University of Tulsa College of Law, Tulsa, OK
 Ascanio Piomelli, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
 David G. Post, Beasley School of Law, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA
 William Quigley, Loyola University School of Law, New Orleans, LA
 Jenny Roberts, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC
 David Rocklin, University of Oregon School of Law, Eugene, OR
 Cesare Romano, Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
 Margaret Russell, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Barbara Stark, Hofstra Law School, Hempstead, NY
 Barry C. Scheck, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY
 Steven Semeraro, Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego, CA
 Steven Shatz, University of San Francisco School of Law, San Francisco, CA
 Jonathan Simon, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA
 Eric S. Sirulnik, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC
 David Sloss, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Abbe Smith, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
 Ilya Somin, George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA
 Clyde Spillenger, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA
 Edward Steinman, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Mark Strasser, Capital University Law School, Columbus, OH
 Robert N. Strassfeld, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Cleveland, Ohio
 Nadine Strossen, New York Law School, New York, NY
 Gerald F. Uelmen, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Alexander Volokh, Emory Law School, Atlanta, GA
 Keith Wingate, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA
 Eric Wright, Santa Clara Law, Santa Clara, CA
 Richard W. Wright, Illinois Institute of Technology, Kent College of Law, Chicago, IL"


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just because testing is complicated doesn't legitimize punishing people for smoking a joint last week. Beardo, you are a doper, do you get stoned at work?


 Answer-YES . but as for his quote it is true in a few ways yes some people in each of those professions will be going to work blazed it is a fact...the truth is they already do but now it is illegal unless their medical and eventhough some bus drivers might blaze and it is fine if their is a problem and he crashes the bus then they test him and can say he was to blame he used marijuana. now it will complicate this for employers. prop 19 isn't going to make a whole lot of teachers start smoking weed but will change the situation for the ones who do- for better or worse


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i meant people from "all of those groups", i did not mean "every single one of those people". sorry for any confusion.


No problem. Confusion is what we do best around here.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> A few professors of law support prop 19. *I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input* .....................


wooo hooo, more insults.

you sure know how to tell us.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

beardo said:


> Answer-YES . but as for his quote it is true in a few ways yes some people in each of those professions will be going to work blazed it is a fact...the truth is they already do but now it is illegal unless their medical and eventhough some bus drivers might blaze and it is fine if their is a problem and he crashes the bus then they test him and can say he was to blame he used marijuana. now it will complicate this for employers. prop 19 isn't going to make a whole lot of teachers start smoking weed but will change the situation for the ones who do- for better or worse


Just want to be sure I understand your position on this: It is legitimate to punish people (fire them, discipline them, arrest them for DUI) because they smoked a joint a week ago, that is your position?


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> A few professors of law support prop 19. I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input


 I never believe a nerd-they can not be trusted, they are up to no good, I don't like people who are to smart


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> wooo hooo, more insults.
> 
> you sure know how to tell us.


Can we close this ridiculous thread yet?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> wooo hooo, more insults.
> 
> you sure know how to tell us.


Lighten up, FDD. I said "we". "We" includes me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just want to be sure I understand your position on this: It is legitimate to punish people (fire them, discipline them, arrest them for DUI) because they smoked a joint a week ago, that is your position?


you keep pushing this, yet NOBODY here is saying this. 

you really don't get it. do you?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

beardo said:


> I never believe a nerd-they can not be trusted, they are up to no good, I don't like people who are to smart


That is a great reply, Beardo. LOL.


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just want to be sure I understand your position on this: It is legitimate to punish people (fire them, discipline them, arrest them for DUI) because they smoked a joint a week ago, that is your position?


 of cource not-


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Lighten up, FDD. I said "we". "We" includes me.



i will quote it again, .......




desert dude said:


> A few professors of law support prop 19. *I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input* .....................


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> A few professors of law support prop 19. I know you legal eagles (Beardo, FDD, et al) are smarter than these guys, but still, consider their pitiful input http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010):
> 
> * Opinion of Law Professors*
> 
> ...


LOL!

This cracks me up.

Most folks vote their pocket books. Why would you vote otherwise?

They see Prop 19 as being REALLY good for business. They truly understand P19!!!

LOL!


----------



## nathenking (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> Just want to be sure I understand your position on this: It is legitimate to punish people (fire them, discipline them, arrest them for DUI) because they smoked a joint a week ago, that is your position?


Just drop it man... This is such a harry drawback from this stupid law... This is just one of 20 in my opinion... The people who wrote this did not think it would pass... Hence all the Fucking loop holes.... Its absolutely pathetic that all these people are jumping at this damn bill, it is really sad that this is what our country has come to...


----------



## beardo (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> That is a great reply, Beardo. LOL.


 I'm 100% serious on that -think of the evils they have done-never trust a nerd- doctors scientists lawyers


beardo said:


> I never believe a nerd-they can not be trusted, they are up to no good, I don't like people who are to smart


[youtube]pdATuDKYlgA[/youtube]


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you keep pushing this, yet NOBODY here is saying this.
> 
> you really don't get it. do you?


That is what current MJ metabolite testing does. You guys seem to really want to hang onto current metabolite testing methods.


----------



## stumps (Oct 24, 2010)

lol to funny, bout fell off my chair


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> That is what current MJ metabolite testing does. You guys seem to really want to hang onto current metabolite testing methods.



i'm done.

i tried.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> That is what current MJ metabolite testing does. You guys seem to really want to hang onto current metabolite testing methods.


There are no options to current methods. Cannabis metabolites are very stable and slow to flush from a person's system.

Insurers won't change their rules as long as Cannabis is an intoxicant.

Prove otherwise.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i'm done.
> 
> i tried.


It was a valiant, albeit futile endeavor, mate. 

https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/378797-help-starting-poll-prop-19-a.html

Someone who can't scroll down the page and find the fairly obvious poll options has massive perceptual issues.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It was a valiant, albeit futile endeavor, mate.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/378797-help-starting-poll-prop-19-a.html
> 
> Someone who can't scroll down the page and find the fairly obvious poll options has massive perceptual issues.


I found the poll options just fine. I just can't make the poll option work. Can you?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

TokinPodPilot said:


> It was a valiant, albeit futile endeavor, mate.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/legalization-marijuana/378797-help-starting-poll-prop-19-a.html
> 
> Someone who can't scroll down the page and find the fairly obvious poll options has massive perceptual issues.




"we the people, ..... in order to form a more perfect union, ....... " 

i'm watching the new episode of the kardashians. seems appropriate.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I found the poll options just fine. I just can't make the poll option work. Can you?


Yes... I don't have your issues.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I found the poll options just fine. I just can't make the poll option work. Can you?




====> https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop.html


----------



## desert dude (Oct 24, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> ====> https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop.html


Cool, thanks. I just wanted to see how support/opposition to P19 breaks out here at RUI. About what I thought it would be: 2/3 in favor, 1/3 against. Meaningless with respect to the actual election, but interesting.


----------



## Needofweed (Oct 24, 2010)

one trillion euros a half gram is what a pay for mildgrade weed


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 24, 2010)

kim and miles are breaking up.


----------



## TokinPodPilot (Oct 24, 2010)

[video=youtube;wmASYxdYYLc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmASYxdYYLc[/video]

SPOILERS!!!


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> ====> https://www.rollitup.org/politics/353347-official-cast-your-vote-prop.html


I think I'd like to know how many "yes" votes came from members of less than two weeks?

I've seen ballot box stuffing, but this seems like such a hassle....

LOL!


----------



## Needofweed (Oct 25, 2010)

vote no on 19


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 25, 2010)

Seems to me we need a definition and test for impairment.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> Seems to me we need a definition and test for impairment.



Exactly right.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 25, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> Seems to me we need a definition and test for impairment.


There's the rub.

Cannabis' effects are so subjective that applying such tests would be expensive and very inaccurate.

There have been studies that show Cannabis to actually improve test subject's performance under controlled conditions.

If you can get such tests to replace pee tests, I'm all for it.

Personally, I don't think the powers in this country will let it happen.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 25, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> There's the rub.
> 
> Cannabis' effects are so subjective that applying such tests would be expensive and very inaccurate.
> 
> ...


You are probably right, but using current testing methods all you can do is determine whether somebody smoked a joint in the last month, if they did then they are "under the influence". This is clearly unacceptable, and needs to be fixed.


----------



## hairylemonberry (Oct 26, 2010)

if the prices are high i better get high quality weed. but if i'm paying for dirt id rather just produce my own. i could see paying 250 to 300 for some dank shit, i guess its really up to the people on the price cause if they try to fuck us with ridiculous prices why even buy it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 27, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Cannabis' effects are so subjective that applying such tests would be expensive and very inaccurate.


Very true. If I take a bong hit I can't drive for several hours. Most people are fine in like half an hour.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Very true. If I take a bong hit I can't drive for several hours. Most people are fine in like half an hour.


Exactly. I'm a comparatively weak head, but am pretty much unimpaired after fifteen minutes, regardless of the amount smoked. The pain relieving qualities remain for two to four hours.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

i hit the bong _while_ i drive.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

Ever been out of papers, and vaporized buds on your vehicle's cigarette lighter?

I found out how well it works in 1969.

Unfortunately, it destroys the lighter, after a while.


----------



## golddog (Oct 27, 2010)

Smoking doesn't bother me....., but I call tell sometimes it bothers my wife.

Not the coordination thing, but we will decide to go somewhere (like her best friend 10 blocks away) , and she will make a wrong turn. 

I say why are you getting on the freeway? 

Duh .....


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Ever been out of papers, and vaporized buds on your vehicle's cigarette lighter?
> 
> I found out how well it works in 1969.
> 
> Unfortunately, it destroys the lighter, after a while.


very clever. i'm gonna remember that one.


----------



## deprave (Oct 27, 2010)

As a grower I think it will be about 2,000$ a lb and very few people will grow indoor, indoor growing will become a hobbyist venture, indoor growing is already borderline merely a hobbyist venture now but if mj was 100% legal it would be a hobby in the fullest sense


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

outdoor is as low as 1500 a pound right now, .... http://california.budtrader.com/


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

deprave said:


> As a grower I think it will be about 2,000$ a lb and very few people will grow indoor, indoor growing will become a hobbyist venture, indoor growing is already borderline merely a hobbyist venture now but if mj was 100% legal it would be a hobby in the fullest sense


Agreed.

Indoor growing is expensive and dangerous. Indoor grows became a huge issue in Arcata in the last few years as one house after another burned down due to inexperienced growers doing their own wiring.

Even when HPS became available I chose to stay outdoors.

Along with the expense, I've found that few indoor growers can improve on the buds I get from my garden. I've tried hundreds of samples, because my spouse worked in a dispensary before her health prevented her from making the commute. She got a free gram daily, from the top shelf.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i hit the bong _while_ i drive.



You are probably joking, but if not you are driving under the influence. I have no problem with you being arrested for that.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You are probably joking, but if not you are driving under the influence. I have no problem with you being arrested for that.



you can "drive under the influence" and still be legal. i can drive all i want at a 0.07. how will a court prove i am "under the influence" of pot? unless they can catch me with smoke in my lungs. so what exactly will i be arrested for and how will it be proven in a court of law? and how will it be determined to begin with? is there a "stoned" test?


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 27, 2010)

Who the fuck drives sober... that shit is way too boring. I have at least 6 40s and 12 blunts before getting behind the wheel.


----------



## Coreyhulick (Oct 27, 2010)

it should be free to people who dont over doo it and even if you did it should still be cheap as shit, but i dont think it should get legalized any way it should just get decriminalized and not cause any more problems, if it gets legal it would be like tobacco with fillers and not all the same kind in it if its pushed through factorys. they would find the cheapest ways around every thing. if its just decriminalized they shouldnt have too really think about it and we should just let the value still be based on its quality not just making it a flat price. some people make all there money from growing and selling. if it was legal itwould put alot of people out of the job whitch leads too bad ways of earning money if they are too lazy too get a job. so just decriminalize it and let nature take its courus and let the people find a good price range so we all can be happy with it.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 27, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you can "drive under the influence" and still be legal. i can drive all i want at a 0.07. how will a court prove i am "under the influence" of pot? unless they can catch me with smoke in my lungs. so what exactly will i be arrested for and how will it be proven in a court of law? and how will it be determined to begin with? is there a "stoned" test?


If the cop has probable cause to arrest you (smells pot, you are acting intoxicated, etc) then he can place you under arrest and compel you to be tested for alcohol, this I know for certain. I don't know for a fact that you can be compelled to give blood/urine for a drug test, but I think you can. If you test positive for metabolites, then you are under the influence. It's that simple.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 27, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If the cop has probable cause to arrest you (smells pot, you are acting intoxicated, etc) then he can place you under arrest and compel you to be tested for alcohol, this I know for certain. I don't know for a fact that you can be compelled to give blood/urine for a drug test, but I think you can. If you test positive for metabolites, then you are under the influence. It's that simple.


no, it is NOT that simple. i am a med patient so of course i will test positive. doesn't prove anything and i won't be charged because of it. and even if i was arrested, the courts would still have to prove it. they would have to prove i was "high" at the time and there is no way to prove that. and even if i wasn't a med patient they still couldn't say i was "under the influence at the time of driving" they would have to prove it. and they can't. 

any good lawyer could beat it. 

yes, obviously alcohol is a different story. i can still have a few beers and legally drive though. probably, with me being over 200 lbs, be able to do a double hit on a beer bong and still drive off legally. i wouldn't attempt that one "while" driving though.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 27, 2010)

Maybe Suburu can install a vaporizer with a thermostat in the dash.

I believe a stoned person is far superior to a straight person on the freeway. The stoner is FAR too paranoid to do anything illegal...LOL!

Lessee, I've only been stoned once, over the last two years(I've been retired for a bit over two years). Everything since has been maintenance.

I seem to recall driving some time or other...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 28, 2010)

i ate 4 cookies yesterday. my wife made a funny and i broke out in to a fit of uncontrollable laughter. felt like a shroom trip for most of the day. i did not drive anywhere. 

only because i had nowhere to go.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i ate 4 cookies yesterday. my wife made a funny and i broke out in to a fit of uncontrollable laughter. felt like a shroom trip for most of the day. i did not drive anywhere.
> 
> only because i had nowhere to go.


Just curious.... What do you think about the actual thread topic? I'm not talking about current market value. If hypothetically you were doing a moderate sized commercial high quality outdoor grow, what do you think the lowest price per pound would be including all expenses + just enough profit to still make it worth growing?


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 28, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Just curious.... What do you think about the actual thread topic? I'm not talking about current market value. If hypothetically you were doing a moderate sized commercial high quality outdoor grow, what do you think the lowest price per pound would be including all expenses + just enough profit to still make it worth growing?




i can take 5 dollars worth of glass and turn it into a $200 pipe. 

i know people who grow bomb ass indoor and i have no problem paying them 250 an ounce when i want some variety. if you can deliver what i seek then i will pay you.

my wife and i are on our 5th week straight of trimming everyday. we put in anywhere from 3 to 8 hours a day and have only taken off 2 days in 5 weeks. averaging 5 hours a day X 33 days gives us 165 hours each. she trims fan leaves i trim bud leaves. i was working at a welding job making 25 an hour so i consider myself worth that at least. 165 X 25 X 2 = 8250 in trimmers pay. divide that by 20 = 412 a pound in trimmers pay. 

land is not free. i'm paying 9600 a year to use the areas i grow in. divide that by 20. that's another 480 a pound. 

892, so far. 

i spent about 500 on nutes. divide by 20. that's another 25. 

917.

i put out another 500+ on needed supplies. whether it be string or stakes or tomato cages, new pots, soil. 500 is probably a LOW #. we'll go 30 a pound on that. 

947. 

labor can be anywhere from1 hour to several hours a day. work starts long before plants ever even go in the ground. this year i spent 2 weeks tilling in manure. manure costs money. my labor is again, at least 25 an hour. i have no idea how many hours i actually put into a full season. i start seedlings as early as January. 


i figured when my garden started taking as much time as a "regular" job that it should give back just as much. i make no more from my garden then i would if i was working 9 to 5. 

so we were right around 1000 for me to produce a pound. most businesses pretty much double that as there selling price. 2000 a pound for outdoor is fair. i'm a little over that because that is where the market sits. i seek the best prices. call me greedy.


----------



## stumps (Oct 28, 2010)

I was offered 2500 for my outdoor. Not that I grew enough to sell a pound. But it started at 2000 just for being outdoor. I did get enough to pay for this year and start up for netx year. The big bonus was getting meds for the beter part of the next year. lol It's kinda funny when you add up everything that goes into a fair to good grow.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i can take 5 dollars worth of glass and turn it into a $200 pipe.
> 
> i know people who grow bomb ass indoor and i have no problem paying them 250 an ounce when i want some variety. if you can deliver what i seek then i will pay you.
> 
> ...


That's a good break down. I think most growers would have similar expenses.

A couple years ago, a friend and I brainstormed a very large greenhouse grow, and figured we could get ounces to patients for about $65/oz.

But this is in a grow that would produce 100,000 pounds, annually.

And non profit.

With 300 employees. Think 250 trimmers, working full time, making $750-$1000/week.


----------



## beardo (Oct 28, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i can take 5 dollars worth of glass and turn it into a $200 pipe.
> 
> i know people who grow bomb ass indoor and i have no problem paying them 250 an ounce when i want some variety. if you can deliver what i seek then i will pay you.
> 
> ...


funny how many people in the prop 19 threads have had really said screw the greedy growers, It's work that they do and I don't see any big company treating us better. I would rather give fdd some compensation and get some nice bud than pay some C.E.O or stock holder while someone who knows and cares nothing for the plant makes minimum wadge-or less, to work in some factory or field producing bud.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

beardo said:


> funny how many people in the prop 19 threads have had really said screw the greedy growers, It's work that they do and I don't see any big company treating us better. I would rather give fdd some compensation and get some nice bud than pay some C.E.O or stock holder while someone who knows and cares nothing for the plant makes minimum wadge-or less, to work in some factory or field producing bud.


I agree with this sentiment, but as long as people's lives are being ruined by prohibition it is not persuasive to say, "let's keep it illegal so FDD can make a lot of money". Legalize it, vote for prop 19. If that causes the price to fall, then that is the price that must be paid to end the drug war.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 28, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I agree with this sentiment, but as long as people's lives are being ruined by prohibition it is not persuasive to say, "let's keep it illegal so FDD can make a lot of money". Legalize it, vote for prop 19. If that causes the price to fall, then that is the price that must be paid to end the drug war.


no kidding bro.... but at the end of the day... fuck the CEO's and the big fat cats.... fdd works for his grown/money.... these owners of the big grows wont do shit... and make a shit ton of money.... im not down with that...


----------



## desert dude (Oct 28, 2010)

nathenking said:


> no kidding bro.... but at the end of the day... fuck the CEO's and the big fat cats.... fdd works for his grown/money.... these owners of the big grows wont do shit... and make a shit ton of money.... im not down with that...


I am not a fan of the CEOs either. P19 won't cause the price of MJ to fall. Prices won't decline until it is legal nationally.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 28, 2010)

I agree complelty...


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 28, 2010)

you all done with me now?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> i can take 5 dollars worth of glass and turn it into a $200 pipe.
> 
> i know people who grow bomb ass indoor and i have no problem paying them 250 an ounce when i want some variety. if you can deliver what i seek then i will pay you.
> 
> ...


Right on. Solid answer. I got close to the same numbers (paying trimmers less and a little more for nuts being the only difference). Thx for answering.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

desert dude said:


> I agree with this sentiment, but as long as people's lives are being ruined by prohibition it is not persuasive to say, "let's keep it illegal so FDD can make a lot of money". Legalize it, vote for prop 19. If that causes the price to fall, then that is the price that must be paid to end the drug war.


I totally agree. I've got nothing against anyone growing to make a living. But for me personally, I can't let the question of who is going to make money interfere with progress towards ending prohibition.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

nathenking said:


> no kidding bro.... but at the end of the day... fuck the CEO's and the big fat cats.... fdd works for his grown/money.... these owners of the big grows wont do shit... and make a shit ton of money.... im not down with that...


I'm just going to be happy when this damn election is over and we're all on the same side again.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> I'm just going to be happy when this damn election is over and we're all on the same side again.


Me too Dan...


----------



## Snow Crash (Oct 29, 2010)

On one acre a person can grow an easy 1200 plants each with a 6x6 foot print outdoors. 
So figure on 4 acres (one football field long and two wide) that's nearing 4,800 plants. At say 5lbs per plant on the average that is a good 24,000lbs, 12 tons, of bud.

On a scale of this size, which isn't much really, electric trimmers are a must. These are pricey up front but will save time and cost on hand trimmers. 

This farm could be run from start to finish with 6 to 8 people. You'd need a master gardener/supervisor, an accountant/front man, 3 or 4 farm hands, and at least one security officer. Paying these people should work on a "commission" style sliding structure where they make a reasonable flat rate plus a percentage of the profits after covering expenses. Expect probably 500,000 in salary for the spring to fall seasons, plus 10 to 20% of the profits as well. The Master Gardener and Accountant/Front man are going to be splitting the rest of the profits.

So let's pretend a person has 10 acres of land in that gorgeous ribbon of weather in Northern California. Cost: $150,000. The set up a green house, a few buildings for supplies, maybe add in a pond, large tea brewing systems with plumbing, trim/dry house, septic, utilities, etc, and this adds another $350,000 to the cost of the property in total.

So figure probably $750,000 to $1.5 million to get the whole project off the ground and through the first harvest. Even at 1.5 mil each pound could go for $65 and still turn a small profit. 
The next harvest is less expensive because land and infrastructure are present.

There are unforseen costs that have to be covered. "Insurance" against a bad season, fire, or theft is rolled into the cost per pound. Also their will be some form of permitting and tax requirements as well that cannot be estimated accurately.

So... I think if the cost to the MFG is $65 per pound then they can sell that product for $100 on the pound to a whole seller, who then sells to the retailer at $150 on the pound, who then turns around and sells to the public at about $180 on the pound. About $0.50 per joint, or about $10 a pack. Then add in additional cannabis tax, and you're looking at maybe $14.50 for a pack of 20 cigarette sized joints at your local gas station.

The MFG will net 2.4 million a year, with annual operating costs in the 1 million range.

Now imagine what a big corp could do with tens of millions of dollars and hundreds of acres. 

Legalization would allow for $20 ounces of outdoor organics for sure.


----------



## nathenking (Oct 29, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> On one acre a person can grow an easy 1200 plants each with a 6x6 foot print outdoors.
> So figure on 4 acres (one football field long and two wide) that's nearing 4,800 plants. At say 5lbs per plant on the average that is a good 24,000lbs, 12 tons, of bud.
> 
> On a scale of this size, which isn't much really, electric trimmers are a must. These are pricey up front but will save time and cost on hand trimmers.
> ...


It would allow for cheap MJ, but that doesnt mean that is what it would sell for... people have already shown to pay a certain price... that is not gonna change by a whole lot maybe half... maybe 100 dollar ounces...


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> you all done with me now?


The real question is are you done with us.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 29, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> On one acre a person can grow an easy 1200 plants each with a 6x6 foot print outdoors.
> So figure on 4 acres (one football field long and two wide) that's nearing 4,800 plants. At say 5lbs per plant on the average that is a good 24,000lbs, 12 tons, of bud.
> 
> On a scale of this size, which isn't much really, electric trimmers are a must. These are pricey up front but will save time and cost on hand trimmers.
> ...



this is all make-believe.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 29, 2010)

Bonzi Lighthouse said:


> The real question is are you done with us.


never


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> this is all make-believe.


Agreed!

Firstly, show me anybody that can grow over 4000 lbs per acre and I'll give him brownie points, galore.

There are physical limits.

Secondly, who's going to do all the free trimming? Currently trimmers receive $150-$200/lb for hard, tedious work(my aching back).

I've done the homework on a 100,000 lb/annually operation with multiple harvests in greenhouses set up to black out the interior for flowering and lights for vegging.

Start up would be $2,000,000, and total cost to build would be $6,000,000, after two years.

If my numbers are accurate(and they are) ounces would reach the consumer at $65, or roughly $1000/lb.

That is rock bottom, using every available technique to increase efficiency.

We based our numbers on the use of these greenhouses. Awesome design!

http://www.foreverflowering.net/


----------



## mr2shim (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Agreed!
> 
> Firstly, show me anybody that can grow over 4000 lbs per acre and I'll give him brownie points, galore.
> 
> ...


So wait, in one thread you talk about how money isn't why you're against, but in another it's all about the buck?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Agreed!
> 
> Firstly, show me anybody that can grow over 4000 lbs per acre and I'll give him brownie points, galore.
> 
> ...


I won't argue with your numbers, but I would like to point out that you conclude that MJ would cost about $65/oz to produce. Assuming it reaches the consumer at $130/oz, then that pegs to illegality premium at about $270/oz. Legalization would drive the price down considerably, that is obvious. The government is going to want their cut, no matter what, so the consumer price (in your scenario) will be higher that $130/oz.

Prop 19 is the first real chance at pushing toward legalization since MJ was prohibited. If passed, I expect to see full legalization within ten years at the federal level.


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 29, 2010)

taxes will make up for what legality lowers. 

nothing will be cheaper.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

Another thing.

I was taught that I couldn't go wrong, voting my pocket book.

In nearly 40 years of never missing an election, I've never regretted that policy.

Anybody who does otherwise is an idiot.

Our first duty is to the welfare of our family.

Who doesn't get THAT?


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Another thing.
> 
> I was taught that I couldn't go wrong, voting my pocket book.
> 
> ...


I get that. That is why you are voting no on 19, and why I am voting yes.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> taxes will make up for what legality lowers.
> 
> nothing will be cheaper.


You might be right. If taxes are so high as to maintain the illegality premium, then the black market won't change except that producers will be tax evaders instead of "drug pushers".


----------



## fdd2blk (Oct 29, 2010)

desert dude said:


> You might be right. If taxes are so high as to maintain the illegality premium, then the black market won't change except that producers will be tax evaders instead of "drug pushers".


exactly.


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Oct 29, 2010)

outdoor weed would get cheaper..indoor isnt cheap to grow so why would it be cheaper on the street??...maybe a drop to $250/oz, but that would be pushing it..


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> exactly.


Finally, something we both love.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

SmokeyMcSmokester said:


> outdoor weed would get cheaper..indoor isnt cheap to grow so why would it be cheaper on the street??...maybe a drop to $250/oz, but that would be pushing it..


If green house MJ weed costs $65/oz to produce, there is no reason for it to cost $250/oz retail. Market forces simply will not allow that.


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Oct 29, 2010)

im talkin $250 indoor. indoor is expenive to grow

greenhouse and outdoor is way cheaper..


----------



## mrboots (Oct 29, 2010)

desert dude said:


> If green house MJ weed costs $65/oz to produce, there is no reason for it to cost $250/oz retail. Market forces simply will not allow that.


Why not? A 400% markup from the grower's costs to your pipe. Thats not too outrageous compared to other products.



30


Mark ups are the small profit margins that retailers gain when an item is sold. It is the fundamental of business; it&#8217;s the reasons that the amount we pay is not what the item is actually worth. It&#8217;s the small amount of money the business owner tacks on to cover expenses and overhead costs such as rent, electricity, heating, etc. But some markups are quite ridiculous and here are some of the really high ones that should be avoided.
Here are ten products that most of us use on a weekly basis that have absurd markups: some range to over 5000%! If we all band together to stop buying these ridiculously overpriced products, they will have no choice but to lower their prices! Read on to save money and join the anti-markup movement!
*10. Cosmetics*

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/prescription_drugs.jpg
The thing that many people forget about makeup is what it&#8217;s made out of. Make up is usually around 80-90% dirt! The other ingredients usually consist of oil and wax. People pay ridiculous amounts of money to put dirt on their face! Fragrances are added to make them smell nice; but it&#8217;s still clay or dirt. A couple grams of dirt will sell in a fancy department store for $20-30. The actual cost of the product is the cost of walking outside picking up a handful of clay, grinding it up and adding fragrance and putting it in a little fancy case. Then it can be sold at a huge markup.
With the proliferation of designer makeup brands and competitive companies, luxury and name brands of makeup have become popular. The old adage says: you can put lipstick on a pig, but it&#8217;s still a pig; and you can put dirt in a fancy jar; but it is still dirt. Consider making your own makeup at home (it sounds hard, but it&#8217;s not). &#8220;Recipes&#8221; for creating homemade makeup are everywhere on the internet and can save you money.
*Read more: *
http://www.pvsoap.com/mineral_makeup_ingredients.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/fashion/01skin.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2
*9. Bottled water*


Bottled water; what a ripoff! Someone decided to take one of the world&#8217;s most plentiful resources and cover it with plastic and charge $3-4 a bottle! Bottled water is commonplace at convenience stores, beverage machines, and in the cooler at basketball games. But why? When did we stop drinking from taps and drinking fountains and switch to polyethylene coated H20? When bottled water splashed onto the market, it was being marketed as a healthy alternative to soft drinks.
But it has evolved into an issue of convenience. Instead of using a reusable bottle, it is now easier to grab a prepackaged disposable bottle of water and drop it off in the nearest garbage receptacle when finished with it. But is it any different from tap water? Some companies market their water as being the &#8220;purest&#8221; or &#8220;cleanest&#8221; but in fact, all water must comply with federal regulations of cleanliness regardless of whether it is being drunk out of a plastic bottle or from the tap. Water can usually be attained for free at most places.
Bottled water is a corporate success story; they took a readily available product (one of the most abundant resources on the planet!) and packaged it into a popular product that everyone is willing to pay for. But it hurts the consumer&#8217;s wallet; not to mention it&#8217;s horrible for the environment.
*Read more:*
Fiji Water Scandal
*8. Greeting cards*


The markup on a greeting card is around 100-200%; which is pretty modest considering some of the more vicious markups on other products. But retailers spend very little money to produce this product, so the unsold products do not hurt the bottom line as much as say, an unsold car. Greeting cards are one of the best items to mark up because they are so cheap, and unsold merchandise does not dramatically affect the bottom line.
Paper is cheap, but paper with some sappy writing on it is expensive. It&#8217;s a retailer&#8217;s dream product! A little piece of paper with some writing on it that can be sold for three or four bucks. Recently, electronic greeting cards (also called e-cards) have proliferated and can be found on the internet for free. On Amazon.com, 20 packs of blank greeting cards are available at a cost of $10.99 for a cost of 55 cents per card. Next time you want to save some of that paper in your wallet when it comes to getting a greeting card, choose to use your own greeting card! It will be more meaningful and will cost less.
*Read more:*
http://www.greetingcard.org/about.php?ID=2
http://www.amazon.com/Hallmark-Blank-Greeting-Half-fold-Premium/dp/B000E5N0MG
*7. Mattresses and furniture*


Ever notice how mattresses and furniture are always on sale? Well there&#8217;s a reason for that. Furniture salesmen receive a higher commission if they sell their product at MSRP (manufacturer suggested retail price); usually a minimum of 20%. If they sell their product at MAP (minimum advertised price) they receive a minuscule 7% commission. If you were a salesman, which price would you sell it at? Do your research and find out what the product is actually worth, then buy it. Markups range from 200%-400%. Buying an expensive mattress might make you sleep better right away, but it could leave you tossing and turning at night in the long run.
The best thing to do to avoid being duped at a furniture store is to shop around a lot before you make your final decision. There is often a wide disparity in the price for the same product between two competing stores; it all depends on the MSRP, the MAP, and the honesty of the salespeople.
*Read more: *
http://consumerist.com/2007/09/the-furniture-industry-is-a-secret-cabal.html
http://www.realgoodfurniture.com/furniture-shopping-secrets/
*6. Restaurant drinks (wine and soda)*


Wine has an astonishing 300-600% markup. If you can forego that glass of wine with dinner, your wallet will thank you. What&#8217;s even more shocking is that the average markup is even higher for soda. A 12 ounce glass of soda costs the restaurant nickels, but it is sold for dollars; and it is half filled with ice! It&#8217;s no secret that you can buy a soda from a soda machine for between fifty and seventy five cents and that same soda will cost $2.75 in a restaurant.
Lately there has been talk of adding a hefty tax to soda because it is unhealthy. So it&#8217;s only going to get more expensive. If you&#8217;re tired of whining about wine and sniveling about soda, maybe it&#8217;s time to choose water instead! (But not bottled water!)
*Read more: *
Overpriced Drinks & Other Things We Hate
*5. Brand name clothing*


Brand name clothiers rely on the advertising power of humans as walking billboards as well as conventional marketing strategies for the advancement of their products. The cost of looking good rises every year as more and higher end clothing brands are created. The cost of the clothes doesn&#8217;t change; only the label on the back does, and that&#8217;s what changes the price on the tag. The markup can be 500-1000%, depending on if it&#8217;s an up and coming brand name clothier or an established Italian sounding name brand.
The trendy and fashionable know what the price of looking &#8220;hip&#8221; is, and it is seldom cheap. Apparently the label is worth paying the extra money, because high end clothing retailers continue to thrive, even in hard economic times. The popular names and symbols that are associated with major clothing companies are hard to escape from, as they are literally everywhere. People will pay big bucks for &#8220;the look,&#8221; even if it costs them an arm and a leg to clothe their arms and legs.
*Read more:*
http://nbainsidestuff.wordpress.com/2007/10/21/brand-name-shoes-clothing-are-stupid-ripoffs/
*4. Jewelry/diamonds*


The glittery rocks that cost a fortune are subject to volatile changes in price and high markups. Although the industry average markup varies widely, (100% to up to 1000%) it&#8217;s probably not a good deal regardless of where the jewelry is purchased. Jewelers thrive on the uneducated buyer, so it is wise to do research before buying to settle on a good price and product. Ridiculously cheap or expensive jewelry should raise a red flag because it is probably of substandard quality. It&#8217;s always a good decision to find out what the same jewelry&#8217;s price is at other stores. That information can be used as a negotiating tool.
Also, a diamond over $1000 should come with a certificate certifying its legitimacy from the Gemological Institute of America. Don&#8217;t let these rocks rock your monthly budget or you may find yourself in the hole.
*Read more: *
http://www.home-jewelry-business-success-tips.com/jewelry-stores.html
*3. Glasses frames*


Why A little scrap of metal costs hundreds of dollars is one of life&#8217;s great mysteries. Yet eyeglass wearers continue to get smoked at the optometrist when they squander huge sums of money for frames that hardly weigh an ounce. The markup can be as high as 1000%! Consider perusing the internet for alternatives before spending hundreds of dollars on frames.
Never buy accessories at optometrist&#8217;s offices because they are heavily marked up. Clip-ons, glasses cases, and other eyeglass accessories can usually be purchased for a very reasonable price on the internet. Don&#8217;t pay for products at the eye care office before looking over the internet; or you could end up looking at it in hindsight and regretting it; and hindsight is 20/20.
*Read more: *
http://3mew.wordpress.com/2006/11/10/eyeglasses-stores-are-for-suckers/
*2. Movie theater popcorn/candy*


It&#8217;s no secret that popcorn and candy are expensive at the movie theater. It doesn&#8217;t take an Alan Greenspan to deduce that movie theater popcorn has a high profit to cost margin. Concession sales only make up about 20% of total sales in movie theaters but make up to 40% of the average profit. Why? Because movie theaters need to sell overpriced food to keep ticket prices low. If ticket prices were high, no one would come in the doors and subsequently spend money on snacks. So the price of admission is cheap, but the snacks are where movie companies make the highest profit margin.
So what is the average markup of movie theater popcorn? 900-1200% according to Richard B. Mckenzie, author of &#8220;Why popcorn costs so much at the movies&#8221; and an economics professor at UC Irvine. Better stick to sneaking your snacks in.
*Read more: *
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1001/gallery.americas_biggest_ripoffs/2.html
*1. Prescription Medicine*



You buy all those things right?
Prescription medicine tops the list of highest markups. The sky high cost of prescription medications is crippling the economy of the United States and keeping necessary medicines out of the hands of those who need it most; people living on fixed incomes with acute or chronic health issues.&#8221;A bottle of tamoxifen, used to fight breast cancer, costs $360 in the United States.
It costs $60 in Germany,&#8221; according to U.S. House Representative Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Canada and European countries&#8217; prescription medication prices are regulated by government imposed &#8220;ceiling&#8221; prices; essentially a limit on how high the prices can get for medicines. They also negotiate directly with drug companies. However, no such price controls exist in the United States and we are paying 200%-5600% markups on essential medicines such as Prozac and Xanax! These two medicines are taken long periods of time; for depression and anxiety disorders respectively, which means that the patients that use these prescriptions will be shelling out thousands of dollars over the course of a lifetime to obtain them.
Award winning Detroit reporter Steve Wilson exposed dozens of Detroit area pharmacies for illegitimate price gouging on the prices of their generic drugs. They were buying them at rock bottom price and selling them at an average of 900-1200% markup, depending on the medicine. The local pharmacies were found selling Vasotec, a blood pressure medication for $60 when it cost them $6 to buy the generic version. Similar markups were found at most of the pharmacies in the area; except one. The solution: Costco wholesalers consistently had the best prices with mark-ups between 86 and 423%, not 3,000 to 5,000% according to Florida WFTV reporter Barbara West, who conducted an investigation similar to Steve Wilson&#8217;s. Be wary of the cost of prescription medications when buying from local pharmacies, as


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

SmokeyMcSmokester said:


> im talkin $250 indoor. indoor is expenive to grow
> 
> greenhouse and outdoor is way cheaper..


There might be a "boutique" market for indoor grown MJ, and that would have to command a premium price. 

The only reason MJ is grown indoors now is because it is illegal. If it is legalized, it will be grown outdoors mostly, just like corn and wheat. Cannabis has grown outdoors since time began on earth, the indoor methods sprang up in the last forty years.


----------



## desert dude (Oct 29, 2010)

"Why not? A 400% markup from the grower's costs to your pipe. Thats not too outrageous compared to other products"

See corn, soybeans, wheat, tobacco, oranges, apples, etc.


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Oct 29, 2010)

desert dude said:


> There might be a "boutique" market for indoor grown MJ, and that would have to command a premium price.
> 
> The only reason MJ is grown indoors now is because it is illegal. If it is legalized, it will be grown outdoors mostly, just like corn and wheat. Cannabis has grown outdoors since time began on earth, the indoor methods sprang up in the last forty years.


indoor weed trumps any outdoor weed ive ever seen. even the best outdoor cant compare to great indoor(my opinion probably gonna piss off some folks with that comment)and i have a fair variety of outdoor at my disposal..it never looks like the dank indoor i grow, and get. indoor has brought weed to another level of dank that outdoor simply cant copy, thats why there will always be a demand for indoor, and that demand wont drop the price too much..


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Oct 29, 2010)

SmokeyMcSmokester said:


> indoor weed trumps any outdoor weed ive ever seen. even the best outdoor cant compare to great indoor(my opinion probably gonna piss off some folks with that comment)and i have a fair variety of outdoor at my disposal..it never looks like the dank indoor i grow, and get. indoor has brought weed to another level of dank that outdoor simply cant copy, thats why there will always be a demand for indoor, and that demand wont drop the price too much..


I'd have to say this statement is false.


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Oct 29, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> I'd have to say this statement is false.


well youre entitled to that opinion like im entitled to mine.

all the outdoor i see, even the best does not compare to indoor. i would love to see some outdoor that kicked indoors ass, it would be great for biz, but it hasnt happened yet. outdoor is simply outdoor, and its a lower quality than indoor..

btw..how the hell have ya been doc?


----------



## Dr. Greenhorn (Oct 29, 2010)

I been good smokey. not growing much right now, just 3 plants. hahahaha but still growing I get all edgy and depressed if I don't grow


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Oct 29, 2010)

Dr. Greenhorn said:


> I been good smokey. not growing much right now, just 3 plants. hahahaha but still growing I get all edgy and depressed if I don't grow


i hear ya on that..i cant even smoke weed and i still grow because i love it!! i have a platinum og grow going in my 36 site aero...gonna start a jack herer grow in a week or so, waiting for my moms to give me enough decent clones. 

OP sorry to thread jack..


----------



## mccumcumber (Oct 29, 2010)

Indoor doesn't costs absurd amounts to produce. Especially with water prices as low as they are in California (for you hydro/aero growers). Right now top shelf indoor goes for $250/oz in my area so I don't see how $250/oz is a drop at all. I'd say that an ounce of indoor could go for as cheap as $150 in the future when it becomes legal. Indoor will still be done, but solar pannels will be put into play, because really, who wants to pay that ridiculous electric bill when they can get their energy for free... not me. Solar pannels will also cause the cost of indoor to go down tremendously. You have to look at all the factors man.
I've also seen some outdoor that shit all over some indoor, it really depends who's growing it. Outdoor is A LOT harder to master than indoor, but if done right makes amazing weed.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> On a scale of this size, which isn't much really, electric trimmers are a must.


Never. No legit substitute exists for human trimmers.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> On one acre a person can grow an easy 1200 plants each with a 6x6 foot print outdoors.
> So figure on 4 acres (one football field long and two wide) that's nearing 4,800 plants. At say 5lbs per plant on the average that is a good 24,000lbs, 12 tons, of bud.
> 
> On a scale of this size, which isn't much really, electric trimmers are a must. These are pricey up front but will save time and cost on hand trimmers.
> ...


 Never done a large scale outdoor op right?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Agreed!
> 
> Firstly, show me anybody that can grow over 4000 lbs per acre and I'll give him brownie points, galore.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. Anything produced for less than that will be of a quality that is so low that Californians would not purchase it.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> Another thing.
> 
> I was taught that I couldn't go wrong, voting my pocket book.
> 
> ...


Even though I disagree with your opinions on the effects prop 19 will have I do agree with what you say here. When everyone votes based on how a particular ballot measures effects them personally, we end up with laws that fairly represent the people.

There are exceptions to that of course. There are certain exceptions where minority viewpoints deserve protection from the majority like civil rights issues etc.


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 29, 2010)

mrboots said:


> Why not? A 400% markup from the grower's costs to your pipe. Thats not too outrageous compared to other products


Retail overhead. It's very expensive to run a dispensary. There is some excessive markup due to prohibition for sure, but even running a small dispensary is very expensive. 

When you order a drink from a restaurant it does have what seems to be an excessive markup, but you can't just look at wholesale/retail prices. A restaurant could be charging a 5000% markup on drinks and still not make a profit over all.


----------



## Snow Crash (Oct 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Never done a large scale outdoor op right?


 Very wrong.
Not that I give a shit about what you trolls think. I didn't post for debate.
Don't make assumptions about other people on here. You might know a thing or two about growing (based on the knowledge level of the forum I'd doubt it), but you don't know shit about me.

I've also worked on vineyards, orchards, and in logistics for a produce company. My real world experience exceeds cannabis.

You want to see someone growing like this now?
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=164917

And how does this guy trim his bud?
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=137684

You've obviously never used a trimmer before. Not to say hand trimming isn't needed, just not to the scale you are proposing.

Whatever though, you guys are living in a dream world. I have yet to see someone speak about Fair Market Value or the effect that the repeal of prohibition had on the price of Alcohol. Some of you are saying $250 an ounce. I (could) pay $250 an ounce now for indoor Blue Dream! It makes no sense.

Also, the cost of the plant needs to be regulated to keep all of California's farmers growing food rather than a high value crop like Cannabis. This price fixing will drive the price DOWN not up.
Not like I expect a bunch of stoners to have a firm grip on economics, but I'm still surprised by some of the ignorance. Just a lot of narrow minded, short sighted, uneducated, dribble.

You're going on ignore. Ahh, how I love ignore.


----------



## Bonzi Lighthouse (Oct 29, 2010)

fdd2blk said:


> taxes will make up for what legality lowers.
> 
> nothing will be cheaper.


and the crowd roars


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Even though I disagree with your opinions on the effects prop 19 will have I do agree with what you say here. When everyone votes based on how a particular ballot measures effects them personally, we end up with laws that fairly represent the people.
> 
> There are exceptions to that of course. There are certain exceptions where minority viewpoints deserve protection from the majority like civil rights issues etc.


We are in agreement, 100% on each of those statements.

Protecting a minority opinion is fine, as long as the minority opinion doesn't put others in jail.

The evangelical right(teabaggers, etc.) want to do precisely that. Inflict their own superstitious set of values on the saner majority.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 29, 2010)

Snow Crash said:


> Very wrong.
> Not that I give a shit about what you trolls think. I didn't post for debate.
> Don't make assumptions about other people on here. You might know a thing or two about growing (based on the knowledge level of the forum I'd doubt it), but you don't know shit about me.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you've never done a large scale grow... LOL

I've been gardening all my life. Spent my early years on my Grandparents' ranch.

My friends were all ranchers and their kids.

Your yield estimates seem to indicate that Cannabis produces flowers like corn and wheat produce seeds.

Firstly, gardeners MUST be able to move among the plants, or spraying for bud worms and other sprays becomes impractical. Figure about 25% of the area is dedicated to walking space.

43560 sq. ft. x .75 = 32670 available sq. ft for planting area. I would plant on a 3' x 10' grid, maintaining the walking area up to 6' with screens. Depending on strain, further growth would fill in some of the area over the path. 1452 plants.

Assuming each plant fills 24 sq. ft. with overhang, a good estimate of maximum yield would be 40 grams x 24 sq. ft. x 1452 plants = 3073 pounds.

Anybody who beats 40 grams per square foot outdoors, is spending a LOT of time outdoors, in a large grow.

Everyone here knows about Tom Hill and some of the other growers there. 

Considering your defensiveness, I'd guess you're about 19.

With Cannabis, economy of scale only goes so far.

The primary problem a farmer faces is maintaining quality. This takes a lot of human eyes, watching for problems and treating them daily.

Assuming anybody would try, and succeed in growing hundreds of acres of Cannabis more than once is silly.

Trimming is a seasonal endeavor. A top trimmer, with very quick hands might trim 100 pounds per season.

That means you need THIRTY trimmers for EACH acre. 

There will be plenty of room for corn and wheat.

The loss of buds using power trimmers offsets any savings in trimming costs, unless the operators are very slow and attentive. Quality of trimming will always be an issue with consumers.(Oh! There's a LEAF!!!)

There will be plenty of room for corn and wheat.


----------



## gupp (Oct 30, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> There will be plenty of room for corn and wheat.


We should just grow hemp, it's more nutritious.


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

gupp said:


> We should just grow hemp, it's more nutritious.


The oils are nutritious, but will never replace grain for flavor, IMO.


----------



## Coreyhulick (Oct 31, 2010)

you would for sure get more than 40 grams off one descent sized out door plant


----------



## veggiegardener (Oct 31, 2010)

Coreyhulick said:


> you would for sure get more than 40 grams off one descent sized out door plant


Dude!

READ THE POST!


----------



## Coreyhulick (Oct 31, 2010)

sorry i didnt read the square foot part but ya you could make some bank in the end after every thibg pays it self off


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> We are agreement, 100% on each of those statements.
> 
> Protecting a minority opinion is fine, as long as the minority opinion doesn't put others in jail.
> 
> The evangelical right(teabaggers, etc.) want to do precisely that. Inflict their own superstitious set of values on the saner majority.


[video=youtube;nnUfPQVOqpw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw&feature=aso[/video]


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 31, 2010)

veggiegardener said:


> The loss of buds using power trimmers offsets any savings in trimming costs, unless the operators are very slow and attentive. Quality of trimming will always be an issue with consumers.(Oh! There's a LEAF!!!)


Not to mention the vibration of those trimmers knocks the crystals off the buds and makes the buds look like manufactured crap. Considering what trimming machines do, they are dirt cheap. (yes, +2k is cheap considering what they do) There are many very good reasons people still pay trimmers. They are worth it.


----------



## beardo (Oct 31, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> [video=youtube;nnUfPQVOqpw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUfPQVOqpw&feature=aso[/video]


so you do not believe that our government should protect our country from invasion by another nation?


----------



## Dan Kone (Oct 31, 2010)

beardo said:


> so you do not believe that our government should protect our country from invasion by another nation?


Sure I do. I think everyone agrees it would be bad if we were taken over by another country. I don't see that as a very likely possibility though.


----------



## gupp (Oct 31, 2010)

Back on topic, please. You can continue this elsewhere.


----------



## beardo (Oct 31, 2010)

Dan Kone said:


> Sure I do. I think everyone agrees it would be bad if we were taken over by another country. I don't see that as a very likely possibility though.


-I'm down to debate that it's already happening-post in one of my threads.



gupp said:


> Back on topic, please. You can continue this elsewhere.


Saved by the bell. I can respect that. The value of marijuana is all relitive- supply and demand and all of that to some people it is worthless and to some it is very coveted. I think outdoor prices can go pretty low if it goes more legal I think in C.A. right now top quality indoor can be had for not much over cost-250 or even 200 an OZ their able to make a little by getting good yields but an most people couldn't do it any cheaper than what it costs now. you can give 25$ a gram and I do pretty regularly but it's not hard to find an ounce for 250


----------



## Dan Kone (Nov 1, 2010)

beardo said:


> -I'm down to debate that it's already happening-post in one of my threads.


What thread?


----------



## SmokeyMcSmokester (Nov 3, 2010)

that teabagger video was retarded


----------



## HazyDaze420 (Nov 3, 2010)

All the specifics of the legislation aside- this was a "big picture" loss for all recreational smokers. I would guess the majority of Americans are not interested in making money off of weed. Really, they just want to be able to buy and smoke and maybe even grow a little without hassle. An ounce at a time is plenty for most recreational smokers and whatever you can grow in 25sq. ft? If I'm not mistaken, I know I can get a whole year's worth of personal out of 25sq. ft.!. I understand there has to be a "business" side to it all but the idea that smokers would essentially say no to other smokers is heartbreaking to me. Cali missed out on a chance here-no doubt. The Government will tax and regulate ALL BUSINESS- not just weed. The idea that we can control that before it is even on the open market is foolish and unrealistic from any business perspective. First rule of business- get your product out there- worry about the specifics later. Once it is legal, the cops will not sweat it. Sometimes you have to read between the lines. It is unrealistic to expect them to write a law that says you can have what you want and do what you want without any tax or regulation! When does that EVER happen? It is my humble opinion that we should vote yes to ANY recreational use of MJ. It is a foot in the door. MM​


----------



## Jeremy Sativa (Apr 24, 2013)

Hey Gupp,
You'd think so, huh?
Actually, marijuana, a weed, is considerably easier to grow than tobacco, can grow is soil that will not sustain tobacco plants requirements, etc.
By the way, since right around the time you posted, Michigan legalized in 5 cities. I can roll thru Detroit and score a zip of super for $120


----------



## Balzac89 (Apr 24, 2013)

This thread died three years ago


----------

