RC K9 Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 I'll admit I didn't really understand your post until I read this... http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/10/30/conservative-lawyer-sees-ill-effects-from-anti-monopoly-issue-2.html Which makes sense... kinda. What i dont understand is, if issue 2 will change the process in which the state recognizes monopolies then whats wrong with the current process in which the state recognizes monopolies? Also fuck issue 3, say no to that shit all day. Colorado has been the poster boy on how to effectively create a legalized cannibis industry in a state and last fiscal year collected $72 millinon in tax revenue from cannabis alone (compared with only $42 million from alcohol taxes). Personally I dont smoke and dont mind anyone who does, it is an eventuality in this generation that it will be legalized but it should be done right and with the publics best interest in mind, not 10 private companies. Colorado's model kind of sucks too. You can't just get a license and start a commercial grow operation. I have a friend out there growing, and he was explaining some of the road blocks to doing it legally, and it seems bass ackwards. Basically, it's up to the city you want to grow in to decide if they will allow it or not. But, BEFORE you can even put in you application and present your plan, you have to already own the property. All the paperwork and lawyer fees work out to about $30k. So basically, if property and building, (which you have to already have beforehand) cost you $1mil, they city can still say, "Sorry, we don't think we are going to let you do this." Then you are stuck with a worthless property you just paid $1mil for. Again, if you aren't already rich and have a few hundred grand to just burn through like D. Wiggs, you really don't stand much of a chance of starting your own commercial grow business. I will say it's slightly better than this crap OH is trying to push through though, and I do like the fact that OH is saying screw medical then rec, just legalize it all. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be anywhere near as complicated or corrupted as it currently is to legalize pot and set some common sense regulations in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwashmycar Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 Colorado's model kind of sucks too. You can't just get a license and start a commercial grow operation. I have a friend out there growing, and he was explaining some of the road blocks to doing it legally, and it seems bass ackwards. Basically, it's up to the city you want to grow in to decide if they will allow it or not. But, BEFORE you can even put in you application and present your plan, you have to already own the property. All the paperwork and lawyer fees work out to about $30k. So basically, if property and building, (which you have to already have beforehand) cost you $1mil, they city can still say, "Sorry, we don't think we are going to let you do this." Then you are stuck with a worthless property you just paid $1mil for. Again, if you aren't already rich and have a few hundred grand to just burn through like D. Wiggs, you really don't stand much of a chance of starting your own commercial grow business. I will say it's slightly better than this crap OH is trying to push through though, and I do like the fact that OH is saying screw medical then rec, just legalize it all. It just seems to me that it shouldn't be anywhere near as complicated or corrupted as it currently is to legalize pot and set some common sense regulations in place. I think this is pretty proper protocol. I mean if I want to build a damned car wash I need to own the land and submit plans to zoning, building, design review, ect. Even after submitting it, the city typically has a right to deny you. Even so you can usually get a consensus from a city on whether or not a development (of any kind) would be welcome or not. As far as Ohio, I agree. Its only on the ballot because a bunch of rich people got together and made it so. Not the way something like this should be introduced, and I think it sets a bad precedent for future development. What will the next private business be that gets thrown into our constitution? I gave 2 and 3 a NO today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 What will the next private business be that gets thrown into our constitution? I was thinking about this in terms of the US Constitution since people know those amendments better. 1st Facebook Amendment - Free Speech, but only on Facebook 2nd Hi Point Amendment - Right to bear any arms you want as long as they are made by Hi Point 4th Brinks Amendment - Prevent illegal searches and seizures as long as your home security bill is paid in full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o0n8 Posted November 3, 2015 Report Share Posted November 3, 2015 1st Facebook Amendment - Free Speech, but only on Facebook PC Police won't give up this jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeesammy Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 NO ON 2!!! Nobody really cares if you get high, most companies already have a no drug policy, so if you think there are a ton of people who don't already use it will start you're nuts. Once the fad wears off the difference will be negligible just not as taboo as it is now. Lets see what parents say when their kids start hitting the reefer and their grades go to shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I think this is pretty proper protocol. I mean if I want to build a damned car wash I need to own the land and submit plans to zoning, building, design review, ect. Even after submitting it, the city typically has a right to deny you. Even so you can usually get a consensus from a city on whether or not a development (of any kind) would be welcome or not. As far as Ohio, I agree. Its only on the ballot because a bunch of rich people got together and made it so. Not the way something like this should be introduced, and I think it sets a bad precedent for future development. What will the next private business be that gets thrown into our constitution? I gave 2 and 3 a NO today. So if you want to open a car wash you have to already have the building constructed? Because it makes no sense to invest in an infrastructure that you may not even be able to use. Talk about a huge waste of construction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Down go the potheads and money grabbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 2 barely passing, 3 failed by miles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'd love to see that Ian guys face right about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbs3000 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 So if you want to open a car wash you have to already have the building constructed? Because it makes no sense to invest in an infrastructure that you may not even be able to use. Talk about a huge waste of construction. Just like all commercial structures it would be based on how the land is already zoned and city/townships involved. No, you would never get approved to build a car wash, build a car wash, then have them say no, you cannot operate said car wash. Just like you'd never be approved to grow pot, plant and grow pot, then not be allowed to sell/use said pot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceGhost Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'd love to see that Ian guys face right about now. He was on the news, looked the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotCarl Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 someone mentioned today that there are already two new issues making their way to next november's election day to legalize cannabis. i thought i saw a link on CR somewhere but cant find it, has anyone heard of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Haha, weed.... Haha. I remember when I was 16... It failed to pass because all the weed smokers figured "we got this, everyone like me will vote yes... So I don't need to worry about it as I am only 1 vote so it won't matter". Seriously! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Haha, weed.... Haha. I remember when I was 16... It failed to pass because all the weed smokers figured "we got this, everyone like me will vote yes... So I don't need to worry about it as I am only 1 vote so it won't matter". Seriously! Also because it's a mid-cycle election that's dominated by older (and generally anti-drug) voters. Next November will be a different story. If it's a comprehensive, common sense bill next year I believe it'll pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farkas Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Haha, weed.... Haha. I remember when I was 16... It failed to pass because all the weed smokers figured "we got this, everyone like me will vote yes... So I don't need to worry about it as I am only 1 vote so it won't matter". Seriously! Also because it's a mid-cycle election that's dominated by older (and generally anti-drug) voters. Next November will be a different story. If it's a comprehensive, common sense bill next year I believe it'll pass. I'm sure it has nothing to do with people being educated on Issue 3 and how it creates a monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure it has nothing to do with people being educated on Issue 3 and how it creates a monopoly. You assume a majority of the voting public is well educated on the issues rather than jumping on the hype train created by the various commercials on TV :lolguy::lolguy::lolguy::lolguy::lolguy: Obviously that has an influence (I voted no despite my firm belief people need to stop going to jail over weed) but I have way less faith in voters than you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 Just like all commercial structures it would be based on how the land is already zoned and city/townships involved. No, you would never get approved to build a car wash, build a car wash, then have them say no, you cannot operate said car wash. Just like you'd never be approved to grow pot, plant and grow pot, then not be allowed to sell/use said pot. That's my point. You buy the land, it's zoned for a car wash, you get approval to build and operate said car wash. My understanding of CO marijuana law via a friend that is out there and grows is: You buy the land. You either already have a building on it, or construct a building. THEN you higher your lawyer(s), file all the paperwork, and THEN the gubment decides if they are going to let you operate or not. And they can simply deny you, then you have all your money down the drain in the property, structures, document and lawyer fees. Seems ridiculous. It would make more sense if I have land or am interested in land, am it's properly zoned, I submit my plans to the gubment, they say yes, we will approve, then you proceed with construction ,all the proper documentation to actually operate, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbs3000 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 That's my point. You buy the land, it's zoned for a car wash, you get approval to build and operate said car wash. My understanding of CO marijuana law via a friend that is out there and grows is: You buy the land. You either already have a building on it, or construct a building. THEN you higher your lawyer(s), file all the paperwork, and THEN the gubment decides if they are going to let you operate or not. And they can simply deny you, then you have all your money down the drain in the property, structures, document and lawyer fees. Seems ridiculous. It would make more sense if I have land or am interested in land, am it's properly zoned, I submit my plans to the gubment, they say yes, we will approve, then you proceed with construction ,all the proper documentation to actually operate, etc. I guess the question would be if they are really denying people with sound business models. The state/county/township can still shut down your for profit farm here, they can still pull your liquor license on a bar you pour half a mil into. It doesn't make it a realistic outcome. Also, that's what lawyers are for. When you are talking a multi-million dollar enterprise your corporate lawyers will be able to get sound intel on wither or not you will be approved. Casto just bought the school on Thurman to turn into apartments, a park, and single family homes. Before that deal was ever signed they knew exactly what they could and could not build or do and where. They aren't going to just kill peoples facilities and plans for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 So no dispensary will be open this year, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 This was what my friend was saying," You need $20k for license fees, $10k-$15k to get a lawyer to do all that bs; but before you even get to that point you have to build your entire infrastructure before you can even apply for your license fees." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 This was what my friend was saying," You need $20k for license fees, $10k-$15k to get a lawyer to do all that bs; but before you even get to that point you have to build your entire infrastructure before you can even apply for your license fees." Welcome to the 21st century version of discrimination/segregation. Nothing new here, yes it's legal but you can't afford it so fuck off. Here's an example that being played everyday in broad daylight and no one complained. Want to live in Grandview/UA. Entrance fee is ~$500,000 for a 3 bed/1.5 bath 2000 sq feet home. Right smack in middle of GV and UA is a strip of Columbus properties that can be bough for less than half the $$, it's still expensive compare to the rest of Columbus but you're in the middle of GV and UA so you're "safer" than the rest of Columbus. Your kids are not going to go to GV and UA schools. If that not enough, the property tax in GV and UA is about double that of Columbus. So basically GV and UA are not blatantly telling the poor folks of Cbus to get out of their cities, but you just can't afford to stay here so fuck off. Kinda like your business model above. But usually with the business if you know/find the right people you can "grease the wheels" and the second or third time around you'll get your way. Again, if you can afford the "entrance fee". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 The greasing of the wheels is one of the things that I find deplorable. Yes I understand that has been going on since the inception of mankind, and will continue to go on. The slight difference between the two scenarios though is that if you do get the money, you can live in GV/UA, whereas in the CO example, if you have the money, they city can still say, "ummm, nope. we don't think so. Thanks for your time and money; have fun trying to recoup." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure it has nothing to do with people being educated on Issue 3 and how it creates a monopoly. your statement makes me stick with my original statement.... The general populous isn't/aren't ridden with too many "thinkers".... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC K9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 http://cdn.hark.com/images/000/071/579/71579/original.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted November 4, 2015 Report Share Posted November 4, 2015 The greasing of the wheels is one of the things that I find deplorable. Yes I understand that has been going on since the inception of mankind, and will continue to go on. The slight difference between the two scenarios though is that if you do get the money, you can live in GV/UA, whereas in the CO example, if you have the money, they city can still say, "ummm, nope. we don't think so. Thanks for your time and money; have fun trying to recoup." Usually if you know the right people before you purchase the land you wouldn't be in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.