California, Weed & Overregulation

cawacko

Well-known member
I know we have a number of weed smokers on this board so thought y'all might find this interesting. We know that regulating less is racist but interesting the reaction of some weed growers here over California's regulation proposals.




Too Legit? We Quit: Overregulation, taxes could sway cannabis businesses to stay illegal



Last week's release of a host of new regulations, increasing anxiety about the cost of doing business and a crackdown by federal law enforcement has many cannabis entrepreneurs rethinking entering the state's recreational market on Jan. 1.

Last week, the three state agencies that will be overseeing both the recreational and medical marijuana industries in California issued a 276-page rule book streamlining regulations for the sector.

After a few days to process some of the guidelines, several news outlet are reporting many business owners are now thinking they would rather stay in the shadows of the black market or wait until the individual jurisdictions of towns and counties in the states have sorted out legal regulation before opening their businesses to the public.

“California is a difficult state to do business in,” Amanda Reiman, vice president of community relations for marijuana distributor Flow Kana, told the Sacramento Bee. “I don’t want to understate how difficult it is is to sell marijuana in a state that over-regulates everything.”

One particular pain point? The lack of limits on farm size, something Hezekiah Allen of the California Growers Association told the Bee puts the state's smaller farms at a disadvantage as larger actors move in. Also at issue is a taxation rate that could be as high as between 40 percent to 70 percent after local, county and state regulators take their hits of sales revenue.

Another major issue? Intervention by federal law enforcement agencies, because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

“We fear the feds would like to make an example out of businesses in California,”Graciela Castillo-Krings, a legislative aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, reportedly said at a panel called “Tapping the New $4 Billion California Market,” the Bee reports.

You can read more about the complex rules now enacted for California cannabis businesses here. For more about why entrepreneurs might stay on the sidelines come Jan. 1, click here.

Stayed tuned for our in-depth look at what it will take to get the state's recreational cannabis industry off the ground, which will run in an upcoming print edition.



https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfran...t-we-quit-rules-taxes-calif-cannabiz.amp.html
 
no big shock here. the government sees a way to rape the people of their money through taxation, why should people start a business that they are ensured to have to fork over most of their profit to the government.
 
no big shock here. the government sees a way to rape the people of their money through taxation, why should people start a business that they are ensured to have to fork over most of their profit to the government.

I would imagine the fear of jail could be a motivator for some to want to do it legally but I don't know how prevalent that fear is (or if it even exists at all)
 
I would imagine the fear of jail could be a motivator for some to want to do it legally but I don't know how prevalent that fear is (or if it even exists at all)

why would any sane and reasonable individual wish to attempt a non livable profit with the threat of imprisonment or death for trying to make it livable?
 
I have to plead ignorant to the ins and outs of the weed industry and what growers want.

it doesn't have to specifically be associated with marijuana. it could be any business. in california it could be firearms. it texas it could be abortion, in new york it could be free speech. anything that can be taxed can be destroyed.
 
I know we have a number of weed smokers on this board so thought y'all might find this interesting. We know that regulating less is racist but interesting the reaction of some weed growers here over California's regulation proposals.




Too Legit? We Quit: Overregulation, taxes could sway cannabis businesses to stay illegal



Last week's release of a host of new regulations, increasing anxiety about the cost of doing business and a crackdown by federal law enforcement has many cannabis entrepreneurs rethinking entering the state's recreational market on Jan. 1.

Last week, the three state agencies that will be overseeing both the recreational and medical marijuana industries in California issued a 276-page rule book streamlining regulations for the sector.

After a few days to process some of the guidelines, several news outlet are reporting many business owners are now thinking they would rather stay in the shadows of the black market or wait until the individual jurisdictions of towns and counties in the states have sorted out legal regulation before opening their businesses to the public.

“California is a difficult state to do business in,” Amanda Reiman, vice president of community relations for marijuana distributor Flow Kana, told the Sacramento Bee. “I don’t want to understate how difficult it is is to sell marijuana in a state that over-regulates everything.”

One particular pain point? The lack of limits on farm size, something Hezekiah Allen of the California Growers Association told the Bee puts the state's smaller farms at a disadvantage as larger actors move in. Also at issue is a taxation rate that could be as high as between 40 percent to 70 percent after local, county and state regulators take their hits of sales revenue.

Another major issue? Intervention by federal law enforcement agencies, because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

“We fear the feds would like to make an example out of businesses in California,”Graciela Castillo-Krings, a legislative aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, reportedly said at a panel called “Tapping the New $4 Billion California Market,” the Bee reports.

You can read more about the complex rules now enacted for California cannabis businesses here. For more about why entrepreneurs might stay on the sidelines come Jan. 1, click here.

Stayed tuned for our in-depth look at what it will take to get the state's recreational cannabis industry off the ground, which will run in an upcoming print edition.



https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfran...t-we-quit-rules-taxes-calif-cannabiz.amp.html

I also remember conservatives claiming that Jerry Brown would crash the state economy if he dared to raise taxes.

The exact opposite happened compared to what conservatives claimed.

I am not discounting there could be problems with the implementation of a new law, especially one as complex as this one.
Legislators and regulators will have to adapt, modify, and fine tune as needed.
 
I also remember conservatives claiming that Jerry Brown would crash the state economy if he dared to raise taxes.

The exact opposite happened compared to what conservatives claimed.

I am not discounting there could be problems with the implementation of a new law, especially one as complex as this one.
Legislators and regulators will have to adapt, modify, and fine tune as needed.

Not sure what Jerry Brown has to do with anything here. Nor am I making a prediction.

You're reading the same article as I am and you probably have far more knowledge of the weed industry than I do. You see what owners are saying here. And you see what they say about California's business climate.
 
I know we have a number of weed smokers on this board so thought y'all might find this interesting. We know that regulating less is racist but interesting the reaction of some weed growers here over California's regulation proposals.




Too Legit? We Quit: Overregulation, taxes could sway cannabis businesses to stay illegal



Last week's release of a host of new regulations, increasing anxiety about the cost of doing business and a crackdown by federal law enforcement has many cannabis entrepreneurs rethinking entering the state's recreational market on Jan. 1.

Last week, the three state agencies that will be overseeing both the recreational and medical marijuana industries in California issued a 276-page rule book streamlining regulations for the sector.

After a few days to process some of the guidelines, several news outlet are reporting many business owners are now thinking they would rather stay in the shadows of the black market or wait until the individual jurisdictions of towns and counties in the states have sorted out legal regulation before opening their businesses to the public.

“California is a difficult state to do business in,” Amanda Reiman, vice president of community relations for marijuana distributor Flow Kana, told the Sacramento Bee. “I don’t want to understate how difficult it is is to sell marijuana in a state that over-regulates everything.”

One particular pain point? The lack of limits on farm size, something Hezekiah Allen of the California Growers Association told the Bee puts the state's smaller farms at a disadvantage as larger actors move in. Also at issue is a taxation rate that could be as high as between 40 percent to 70 percent after local, county and state regulators take their hits of sales revenue.

Another major issue? Intervention by federal law enforcement agencies, because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

“We fear the feds would like to make an example out of businesses in California,”Graciela Castillo-Krings, a legislative aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, reportedly said at a panel called “Tapping the New $4 Billion California Market,” the Bee reports.

You can read more about the complex rules now enacted for California cannabis businesses here. For more about why entrepreneurs might stay on the sidelines come Jan. 1, click here.

Stayed tuned for our in-depth look at what it will take to get the state's recreational cannabis industry off the ground, which will run in an upcoming print edition.



https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfran...t-we-quit-rules-taxes-calif-cannabiz.amp.html

Why the groan Mott?
 
I know we have a number of weed smokers on this board so thought y'all might find this interesting. We know that regulating less is racist but interesting the reaction of some weed growers here over California's regulation proposals.




Too Legit? We Quit: Overregulation, taxes could sway cannabis businesses to stay illegal



Last week's release of a host of new regulations, increasing anxiety about the cost of doing business and a crackdown by federal law enforcement has many cannabis entrepreneurs rethinking entering the state's recreational market on Jan. 1.

Last week, the three state agencies that will be overseeing both the recreational and medical marijuana industries in California issued a 276-page rule book streamlining regulations for the sector.

After a few days to process some of the guidelines, several news outlet are reporting many business owners are now thinking they would rather stay in the shadows of the black market or wait until the individual jurisdictions of towns and counties in the states have sorted out legal regulation before opening their businesses to the public.

“California is a difficult state to do business in,” Amanda Reiman, vice president of community relations for marijuana distributor Flow Kana, told the Sacramento Bee. “I don’t want to understate how difficult it is is to sell marijuana in a state that over-regulates everything.”

One particular pain point? The lack of limits on farm size, something Hezekiah Allen of the California Growers Association told the Bee puts the state's smaller farms at a disadvantage as larger actors move in. Also at issue is a taxation rate that could be as high as between 40 percent to 70 percent after local, county and state regulators take their hits of sales revenue.

Another major issue? Intervention by federal law enforcement agencies, because marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

“We fear the feds would like to make an example out of businesses in California,”Graciela Castillo-Krings, a legislative aide to Gov. Jerry Brown, reportedly said at a panel called “Tapping the New $4 Billion California Market,” the Bee reports.

You can read more about the complex rules now enacted for California cannabis businesses here. For more about why entrepreneurs might stay on the sidelines come Jan. 1, click here.

Stayed tuned for our in-depth look at what it will take to get the state's recreational cannabis industry off the ground, which will run in an upcoming print edition.



https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfran...t-we-quit-rules-taxes-calif-cannabiz.amp.html
Oh gawd not another free market fundamentalism post!!

Let me ask you Wacko was weed more or less regulated when it was illegal in California? :rolleyes:
 
Oh gawd not another free market fundamentalism post!!

Let me ask you Wacko was weed more or less regulated when it was illegal in California? :rolleyes:

Did you read the article? What about it is free market fundamentalism? Is it not appropriate to discuss this issue on a political chat board?
 
Did you read the article? What about it is free market fundamentalism? Is it not appropriate to discuss this issue on a political chat board?
Wacko....you’re getting like Tom on ACC. Over regulation is mostly what you post about anymore.

I mean dude you live in California. Over regulate is what you do. California would over regulate snail fucking. Not because you have a liberal problem but because you have a lawyer problem (as in to many of them).

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...2116.&article=1.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...597.&article=19.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...sectionNum=8001.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

P.S. Go Bucks! Another Michigan curb stomping
 
Just to emphasize my point the litigious corporate legal environment in California is a far greater driver of excessive regulation in California than State House politics are (i.e. don’t confuse cause with effect). So my heart pumps piss for California businesses who bitch about California being over regulated as it is the overly litigious California business community that is largely responsible for over regulation in California and not liberal politicians.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...tes-shows-most-litigious.aspx?Redirected=true
 
Last edited:
Wacko....you’re getting like Tom on ACC. Over regulation is mostly what you post about anymore.

I mean dude you live in California. Over regulate is what you do. California would over regulate snail fucking. Not because you have a liberal problem but because you have a lawyer problem (as in to many of them).

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...2116.&article=1.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...597.&article=19.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...GOV§ionNum=8001.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

P.S. Go Bucks! Another Michigan curb stomping

Many people on this board smoke weed and many people have argued against the drug war and for more liberal laws on drugs, especially MJ. Here we have a chance to do something about it in California and we see what the response has been so far.

Who do you think creates the environment/rules that allow lawsuits to run rampant? The state legislature and Governor. You can't let legislatures off the hook for what they have caused.


And yes, it is always a GREAT day to curb stomp the boys from up North! (Maybe I'm too old fashion but I have to say I was not a fan of the uniforms. It almost didn't feel like a tOSU-UM game with our boys wearing those things.)
 
Wacko....you’re getting like Tom on ACC. Over regulation is mostly what you post about anymore.

I mean dude you live in California. Over regulate is what you do. California would over regulate snail fucking. Not because you have a liberal problem but because you have a lawyer problem (as in to many of them).

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...2116.&article=1.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...597.&article=19.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/...GOV§ionNum=8001.&highlight=true&keyword=Snail

P.S. Go Bucks! Another Michigan curb stomping
Nice win today, although I prefer less heart attack moments:)
 
Just to emphasize my point the litigious corporate legal environment in California is a far greater driver of excessive regulation in California than State House politics are (i.e. don’t confuse cause with effect). So my heart pumps piss for California businesses who bitch about California being over regulated as it is the overly litigious California business community that is largely responsible for over regulation in California and not liberal politicians.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...tes-shows-most-litigious.aspx?Redirected=true

Mott, take CEQA. Do you know how many lawsuits are filed by individuals, groups etc. using CEQA to stop development? This is way over the top environmental legislation that has been distorted in its use. Who passed CEQA? California politicians. Who won't change CEQA even though they know it is being abused? California politicians.
 
Just to emphasize my point the litigious corporate legal environment in California is a far greater driver of excessive regulation in California than State House politics are (i.e. don’t confuse cause with effect). So my heart pumps piss for California businesses who bitch about California being over regulated as it is the overly litigious California business community that is largely responsible for over regulation in California and not liberal politicians.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnew...tes-shows-most-litigious.aspx?Redirected=true

Mott, where are you getting this idea that's it's businesses that are filing all the lawsuits in the state? Same question to you Cypress since you liked his post.


California’s litigious climate

California’s litigation climate remains one of the worst in the country. The state came in second in this year’s “Judicial Hellholes” report by the American Tort Reform Foundation.
California has topped the list for three of the past five years, coming in second the rest of the time, being dethroned only due to exceptional corruption in New York City’s asbestos courts in 2014 and this year by St. Louis courts for their lax approach to junk science.

Ranked second this year is perennial hellhole California, where lawmakers, prosecutors and plaintiff-friendly judges inexorably expand civil liability and thus invite the nearly 1 million new lawsuits filed there each year,” explained ATRF president Tiger Joyce. “Of course, the politically influential personal injury bar is enriched by such litigiousness, even as tightened state budgets make it increasingly difficult for state courts to keep up with the volume.”

The report notes that since 2010, the state has approved an average of 827 new laws every year, approving 893 new laws in 2016. While at least one of these laws is helpful — Senate Bill 269, which gives small business owners a chance to fix technical violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act before being subject to penalties or lawsuits, was signed into law in May — many more laws will only aggravate the state’s reputation for encouraging lawsuits, including new environmental laws and regulations.

As a state that routinely welcomed out-of-state plaintiffs and lawsuits over any minor issue, this tendency to enact increasing numbers of laws results in a clogged court system and dissuades many businesses from opening shop in California.

The report cites, for example, a class action lawsuit over complaints that “evaporated cane sugar” on soda labels is actually sugar. “Had they known ‘evaporated cane juice’ was the same thing as added sugar or syrup, Plaintiffs would not have purchased Defendant’s food products,” the court filing explained.

Fortunately, there are some glimmers of reason. In August, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson of the Central District of California dismissed a lawsuit alleging Starbucks “systematically defrauds its customers by advertising its cold drinks as containing more liquid than they do by ‘underfilling’ its cups with liquid and then adding ice to make the cups appear full.”

Naturally, the report notes the litany of unintended consequences stemming from the California Environmental Quality Act, which is routinely invoked by NIMBYs to “bludgeon” projects they don’t agree with or which are perceived threats to wealthy plaintiffs’ property values or business interests. Targets of CEQA lawsuits are often taxpayer-funded projects, while housing developments are the most targeted privately funded target.

According to a study by law firm Holland & Knight, most plaintiffs in CEQA cases have no track record of environmental advocacy prior to filing their lawsuits, with only 13 percent of CEQA petitioners being recognized state and national environmental groups.

Ending on a positive note, the ATRF report celebrated the April federal court ruling blocking Attorney General Kamala Harris’ demand that the Americans For Prosperity Foundation disclose the names of its donors, noting that such a requirement would have a chilling effect on free speech.

Alas, it’s a difficult state of affairs in California, one that will need to be continually challenged for the sake of common sense and economic competitiveness.


http://www.dailynews.com/2016/12/27/californias-litigious-climate/
 
Back
Top