If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Ric Romero reports that medical Cannabis is expensive   (latimes.com) divider line 71
    More: Obvious, Southern California, medical marijuana, Board of Equalization, Dana Point, San Clemente, overhead costs, Beretta, Steve Cooley  
•       •       •

5217 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2012 at 4:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 07:38:19 PM

Retractable Weeners: 8 here. Quality.


Except that your seeds could be male and males would pollinate any grow for miles ruining their crops. I'm sure the DEA appreciates your work :)
 
2012-06-17 07:41:58 PM

gleaningtheboob: Thinking again though I do see your point. We've already seen private corporations employing the police for protection and strike breaking so, if you're right, how is this any different? Welcome to the future of corporate fascism.


I'm not one of those stoners who thinks the entire world is against weed (I don't even smoke it) but it's only logical that the pharmaceutical industry's best interests don't lie in medical marijuana being cheap or easy to get (or legal for that matter).
 
2012-06-17 07:44:28 PM
Grab the cheetos and then off to the Romero-mobile.
 
2012-06-17 07:46:37 PM

wax_on: I don't mind the "medical" marijuana, but I do mind what seems to be excessive profit taking. In theory aren't these businesses supposed to be working for the benefit of their patients? If that were true then they would be charging a price that's closer to what they but the product for, lowering the cost to the patients and letting them keep more money in their pockets and increase their quality of life (or buy more twinkies as the case may be.)


keep in mind a grower or a dispensary has all sorts of overhead to pay for that inflates the product price. rent, electric, water, display cases, having someone behind the counter 50 hours a week - it all costs money.
 
2012-06-17 09:13:13 PM

KrispyKritter: wax_on: I don't mind the "medical" marijuana, but I do mind what seems to be excessive profit taking. In theory aren't these businesses supposed to be working for the benefit of their patients? If that were true then they would be charging a price that's closer to what they but the product for, lowering the cost to the patients and letting them keep more money in their pockets and increase their quality of life (or buy more twinkies as the case may be.)

keep in mind a grower or a dispensary has all sorts of overhead to pay for that inflates the product price. rent, electric, water, display cases, having someone behind the counter 50 hours a week - it all costs money.


This is probably where someone who knows the ins and outs of non-profits and tax law would be helpful, but I'm pretty sure those things are still allowed to be covered for a non-profit.

The dispensaries should be able to charge enough to pay for overhead, product development and production (growing, cooking up the edibles, etc), and salaries/wages for the employees and owners. Where it probably gets tricky is how much the owner can make. If the owner is clearing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year after expenses, tax free, I can see how that could be considered excessive.

There probably has to be some charter for the business that spells out the exact amount the owner and each employee can take as earnings, with the rest of any profits after expenses having to be reinvested back into the business or used to offset costs for the patients in the future.
 
2012-06-17 09:13:35 PM
Lucky bastards...I wish I could get some "legal" greens here in Texas.
 
2012-06-17 09:32:48 PM
You darn kids. When I was a sprout, one could obtain a fine, fat joint in the smoking area at my high school for $1. Good stuff, too. I remember when it went up to $2 and everyone was like, dude... weed's getting expensive...

Of course, I don't know this from personal experience. I just heard people talk about it...
 
2012-06-17 09:46:32 PM
I live in a suburb of Los Angeles that has a population of about 40,000. We easily have 10 pot shops along 3 miles of the main boulevard. The last time we had such a boom in one type of business it was automotive repair shops, and we eventually passed an ordinance disallowing the opening of anymore in town. Now the pot shops are opening up in the old auto shops. 90% of the customers I have seen (people who have apparently exhausted all other regular medical pain-relievers) are less than 25 years old.

The weird thing is, having grown up here, we never needed more than 2 pot dealers before.

Do I have a point? Probably not.
 
2012-06-17 10:02:32 PM

wax_on: In theory aren't these businesses supposed to be working for the benefit of their patients?


in theory isn't all of the health care industry ? In theory
 
2012-06-17 11:58:30 PM
People talk about big pharma...but cops absolutely hate the idea of medical marijuana. The district attorney here in SD (Bonnie Dumanis) shut down hundreds of dispensaries in exchange for funds for her mayoral campaign from the police unions.

Granted, she lost. Badly.
 
2012-06-18 12:27:05 AM

MoronLessOff: Kali-Yuga: Cheaper than buying it on the street in my experience, and from what I've heard from friends that are in L.A. , there are so many dispensaries around L.A. that the prices are the lowest anywhere.

I enjoyed reading this today.


That guy paid ~$120 for his card? Jesus...I got mine for $40.
 
2012-06-18 12:28:28 AM

namegoeshere: You darn kids. When I was a sprout, one could obtain a fine, fat joint in the smoking area at my high school for $1. Good stuff, too. I remember when it went up to $2 and everyone was like, dude... weed's getting expensive...


The smoking area. Those were the days, my friend...
 
2012-06-18 12:32:02 AM

weasil: I live in a suburb of Los Angeles that has a population of about 40,000. We easily have 10 pot shops along 3 miles of the main boulevard. The last time we had such a boom in one type of business it was automotive repair shops, and we eventually passed an ordinance disallowing the opening of anymore in town. Now the pot shops are opening up in the old auto shops. 90% of the customers I have seen (people who have apparently exhausted all other regular medical pain-relievers) are less than 25 years old.

The weird thing is, having grown up here, we never needed more than 2 pot dealers before.

Do I have a point? Probably not.


I think you do. I like variety, but there's no way I could visit every local pot shop. There should be limits.

The only problem with that is that any city addressing that issue ends up going into full anti-pot mod and try to shut down every business.
 
2012-06-18 02:25:10 AM

TuteTibiImperes: KrispyKritter: wax_on: I don't mind the "medical" marijuana, but I do mind what seems to be excessive profit taking. In theory aren't these businesses supposed to be working for the benefit of their patients? If that were true then they would be charging a price that's closer to what they but the product for, lowering the cost to the patients and letting them keep more money in their pockets and increase their quality of life (or buy more twinkies as the case may be.)

keep in mind a grower or a dispensary has all sorts of overhead to pay for that inflates the product price. rent, electric, water, display cases, having someone behind the counter 50 hours a week - it all costs money.

This is probably where someone who knows the ins and outs of non-profits and tax law would be helpful, but I'm pretty sure those things are still allowed to be covered for a non-profit.

The dispensaries should be able to charge enough to pay for overhead, product development and production (growing, cooking up the edibles, etc), and salaries/wages for the employees and owners. Where it probably gets tricky is how much the owner can make. If the owner is clearing hundreds of thousands of dollars per year after expenses, tax free, I can see how that could be considered excessive.

There probably has to be some charter for the business that spells out the exact amount the owner and each employee can take as earnings, with the rest of any profits after expenses having to be reinvested back into the business or used to offset costs for the patients in the future.


I'm not a tax attorney, but I am fairly well acquainted with the non-profit biz. They are allowed to cover overhead, salaries, etc.; but a non-profit shouldn't be in the business of SELLING anything. Which is why most non-profits are either service agencies, or, if they are museums or the like, charge very little for entry and whatever merchandise they provide. (Gift shops are different, but they're usually not profitable anyway) Imagine a museum charging $75 for an entry fee and pocketing the proceeds, for instance.

I'm sure there are non-profits clearing many hundreds of thousands of dollars; but most of it has to go back into the non-profit. So if the museum gets a bequest or donation of $100,000, the board of directors don't get to take an extra vacation--it has to go to renovations, new exhibits, etc. to keep the profits at zero for the rest of the year. These dispensaries got into the business of selling pot for profit, so their boards or whoever COULD go on vacation, and that's a no-no under the law as written. The whole idea of the dispensaries was to prevent them from being "drug dealers", who are in it for the money. As I said, that was CA's end-run around the requirement to prosecute drug dealers--these guys weren't actually dealing drugs for profit, so it was KIND of okay.

But they just couldn't keep their eyes off all that nice green money coming in, I guess.
 
2012-06-18 03:29:36 AM
This is more campaigning against medical marijuana which California voters have approved no matter how much certain agencies or the LA Times don't like it.

I'll tell you this, no matter how much money these guys are making it is not more than the pharmaceutical companies were making on medication that marijuana is able to replace. My eye drops to treat my glaucoma cost me, with a discount program that is being discontinued, $200 a month. Before the discount it was almost $300 and will be again.

Yet the marijuana to cover the same amount of time, as I use a vaporizer and only smoke at night, using drops during the day, costs my $50. My drops last twice as long and I save money that I don't really have to spend. For people with serious issues and no medical insurance it can be a lifesaver, or in my case an eyesight saver.

I wish these people would stop with their anti-medical marijuana push. It is not going to go anywhere as there is too much support for it as well as too much backlash against the "war on drugs".
 
2012-06-18 03:33:40 AM

Torion!: wildcardjack: I suspect some of the price is in order to attain value attribution.

A placebo that costs more is more effective than a cheap one.

I'm not calling pot a placebo, but rather that some of it's attributes are.

The so called harmful side effects is the placebo.

/nothing to back it up but experience


You know I actually wish there was a strain of weed I could smoke that would just lower my ocular pressure and not get me high. Then I could smoke before work and give up these stupid drops all together.
 
2012-06-18 09:36:34 AM

Shahab: This is more campaigning against medical marijuana which California voters have approved no matter how much certain agencies or the LA Times don't like it.

I'll tell you this, no matter how much money these guys are making it is not more than the pharmaceutical companies were making on medication that marijuana is able to replace. My eye drops to treat my glaucoma cost me, with a discount program that is being discontinued, $200 a month. Before the discount it was almost $300 and will be again.

Yet the marijuana to cover the same amount of time, as I use a vaporizer and only smoke at night, using drops during the day, costs my $50. My drops last twice as long and I save money that I don't really have to spend. For people with serious issues and no medical insurance it can be a lifesaver, or in my case an eyesight saver.

I wish these people would stop with their anti-medical marijuana push. It is not going to go anywhere as there is too much support for it as well as too much backlash against the "war on drugs".


I wish I could get a vaporizer, I think it would be perfect for my needs. My glaucoma drops also cost over 200 a month, and they are not enough to stop my condition from ruining my eyesight. Last year, my doctor put me on a methazolamide pill, which is basically the Alamo move. Very unpleasant side effects, detrimental to my lifestyle. I used to be very active, walking an average of over an hour a day, now I'm lucky if I can muster 5 hours a month. Aside from being tired more easily, I have to pee like a race horse all the time from the diuretic side effect. Pretty hard to go for long walks when you constantly need to pee. And the thirst, ai yi yi. Unfortunately, due to my financial situation, I'm forced to live with family who are very anti-smoking, particularly marijuana. Never mind that they are totally dependent upon pharmaceuticals and spend well over 2000 dollars a month on their share of what doesn't get paid by medicare, never exercise, take no responsibility whatsoever about eating or drinking in moderation. I'm not allowed to have the one thing in the world that will keep me from going blind, because big pharma can't make millions off of me, oops, excuse me, because it is illegal.

I brew my weed in a tea, using an emulsion of high quality olive oil (6 drops to ~ 3 cups water), two joints worth of cleaned, finely ground weed, filtered and kept chilled. I try to brew when nobody is home, and act real casual if they return before I'm finished. I drink 1/3 of that batch before going to bed, I sleep like a rock.

Shahab:
You know I actually wish there was a strain of weed I could smoke that would just lower my ocular pressure and not get me high. Then I could smoke before work and give up these stupid drops all together.


I'm not so concerned about being high at work, as I am about being piss tested. As we all know, the quality of your employees is only as good as the purity of their urine. Oh, never mind the 27 LEGAL chemicals floating in their system that are farking them up 9 ways to sunday, each new one trying to compensate for the side effects of the ones before it.

As far as being high, I've found that ingesting orally vs ingesting respiratorily lessens that "whoops, I'm so stoned again" feeling. Additionally, it lasts longer and wears off more gradually. The downside is that brewing is not as efficient as combustion or vaporizing, and you need to use a lot more. At current prices, I probably match the cost of my glaucoma drops with the weed expense. And there is a growing (no pun intended) ability to manipulate breeding to induce potent strains that do not clobber you into a drooling, zombie state, as witness old gangster cush (that's how I was told it was spelled, not with a 'k'). It has gotten to the point where there are good strains for w&b (wakie bakies), that energize you and make you feel like doing something. These often tend to be sativa dominant strains. Then there are the heavy indicas, where you want to eat, fark and sleep. And a freaking rainbow of combinations of those characteristics between the two extremes. I would totally be like a kid in a candy store at a pot dispensary.
 
2012-06-18 01:39:48 PM
brianbankerus
2012-06-17 05:10:28 PM

But god forbid we just outright legalize the stuff and regulate it

//

Good luck on that one. Since Wall Street has started investing in MM the prices have gone full blown retard. Think about that one before you vote next time cuz the repubtards are not going to help anyone who might be considered middle class.
 
2012-06-18 01:47:01 PM
Philbb: How much profit can you make before you lose your nonprofit status?

//

Perhaps this question should be directed to the Pope. It seems there are no limits.
 
2012-06-18 09:12:49 PM

Shahab: This is more campaigning against medical marijuana which California voters have approved no matter how much certain agencies or the LA Times don't like it.



The problem is as long as sales to everyone else remain illegal, the only people making a lot of money are cartels and gangs. All the wrong people.
 
2012-06-18 10:58:55 PM

Shahab: Torion!: wildcardjack: I suspect some of the price is in order to attain value attribution.

A placebo that costs more is more effective than a cheap one.

I'm not calling pot a placebo, but rather that some of it's attributes are.

The so called harmful side effects is the placebo.

/nothing to back it up but experience

You know I actually wish there was a strain of weed I could smoke that would just lower my ocular pressure and not get me high. Then I could smoke before work and give up these stupid drops all together.


have u tried JESUS? he saves
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report