Looking For Investors Own 160ac With Water Rites

  • Thread starter KiLoEleMeNt
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
Hello I have a Huge piece of land with water rites in mid new Mexico! what I am currently looking for is someone who can help me tap some wells treat some soil and put up some fenced areas out of their own pocket for a percentage of total land earnings, my plan is to separate it into ten or more areas fenced off and rent/lease the large tracts to licensed commercial growers and have at least two, two man security car units patrolling the property 24hrs a day once spots begin filling. if you are a real investor and have real cash I am a real land holder and have a real business plan PM me if you would like to talk a little more seriously must have multiple references and prefer you be fully FINRA licensed but not necessary however you must be series 7 lic or have someone advising you who is thanks
 
Last edited:
Johnny Fire

Johnny Fire

75
33
Great idea but new mexico law is written so only 2 growers can grow on a owned property. I don't know your set up or your area but I do know u would need separate addresses. ..im from new mexico and live here... I've had a few friends with this same idea....but there always is a problem
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
They will all be separated as different addresses it is rural and can be broken down as much as a half ac per address and with it being a lease to the grower it's separate from other owned property of the same person even if the land is touching just needs to be separated first by fence then by city trust me I have a full business plan for this and have made sure it was possible yes there will be a bit of red tape to cut through but with the DEA rescheduling Marijuana soon (next 5 yrs they say) it's a solid plan ayway
 
Last edited:
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
@Harp Nope im just the land holder I will have nothing to do with the growers business other than collection of rent

@blazer yes soooooo much freaking red tape bro thanks for the support I have most of the process on the way but need an investment before I want to start hacking the land appart
 
blazer

blazer

1,759
263
Just doesn't sound viable with the way It is set up here not trying to be negative just don't see on that big of a scale yet but when it goes rec Or the regs relax some possible, wells can get pricey here to drill not a whole lot of water even the rivers can go dry in late summer.
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
^^^^^^Here in lies my problem ^^^^^^^
I know I have my ducks in a row when it comes to the land laws it's the water drilling that's killing me that and 8ft fencing plus as I said before DEA is rescheduling it now and will be way less strict in about 5 years and this is a five year plan not like I plan to dump ten wells and a million in fence all in one shot that would be stupid
 
Last edited:
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
All investments offer a balance between risk and potential return. The risk is the chance that you will lose some or all the money you invest. The return is the money you stand to make on the investment.

The balance between risk and return varies by the type of investment, the entity that issues it, the state of the economy and the cycle of the securities markets. As a general rule, to earn the higher returns, you have to take greater risk. Conversely, the least risky investments also have the lowest return
 
waayne

waayne

3,978
263
@KiLoEleMeNt I really don't see the incentive here to invest in your land....

Everything in NM revolves around water,and water rights....land without water here is of little value.....

I'm not sure who you're talking to in Washington,but there's no guarantee it's going to be way less restrictive in 5 years...How do you know this....? Are you in charge of policy ,and lawmaking in DC....?
I am curious to know how you have all this info on what the Industry will look like 5 years from now.........

Good luck with trying to sell this idea to anyone in NM
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue thatcannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permit medical useor to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.

The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition filed by medical cannabis advocates was in 2002, but was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Accessfiled an appeal in January 2012 with the D.C. Circuit, which was heard on 16 October 2012 and denied on 22 January 2013. As of May 2014, 22 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana. Currently, the FDA is conducting an analysis, at the request of the DEA, on whether marijuana should be downgraded, said Douglas Throckmorton, Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA, at a congressional hearing in June of 2014.

Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.[5] Patient advocates argue that by reclassifying marijuana, millions of Americans who are currently prevented from using medical marijuana would be able to benefit from its therapeutic value.
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
On 4 November 2014, D.C. voted by ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for personal use. Earlier in 2014, D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray signed a bill that decriminalized possession of up to an ounce (28 grams) of marijuana in the U.S. capital for persons 18 years of age or older. The law made possession a civil violation with a penalty of $25, lower than most city parking tickets.
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
The movement to end marijuana prohibition has made significant progress recently, but it could all be undone when the next president takes office in 2017.

Harvard economist Jeff Miron, a vocal supporter of marijuana policy reform, highlighted the precarious nature of state marijuana laws in a Wednesday op-ed for CNN on why Congress needs to act now on federal marijuana policy.

"Despite the compelling case for legalization, and progress toward legalization at the state level, ultimate success is not assured," Miron wrote. "Federal law still prohibits marijuana, and existing jurisprudence (Gonzales v. Raich 2005) holds that federal law trumps state law when it comes to marijuana prohibition. So far, the federal government has mostly taken a hands-off approach to state medicalizations and legalizations, but in January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the attorney general to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law."

With marijuana legalizationsupported by a majority of Americans, and with statescontinuing to pass legalization laws -- about a dozen more may do so by 2016 -- it seems unlikely that the federal government would push back against the popular movement. But it's not impossible.

That's because the regulation of marijuana -- as seen in programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state, as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon,Alaska and Washington, D.C. -- remains illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana have only been able to do so because offederal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations. That guidance could be reversed when a new administration enters the White House.

“Both Miron’s analysis and conclusion are spot on," Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post. "The federal government needs to end the failed prohibition of marijuana by rescheduling or removing it from the list of controlled substances. Too many lives are ruined and futures cut short by these outdated and wasteful policies.”

Blumenauer is just one of a number of lawmakers from both parties who have worked toward that end. About a dozen bills were introduced in 2013, several by Blumenauer himself, aimed at limiting the federal government's ability to interfere with states' legal marijuana programs. Last year, Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, which would direct the U.S. Attorney General to issue an order that removes marijuana in any form from all schedules of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. If passed, Polis' measure would effectively end the federal government's prohibition of marijuana.

And while Congress has failed to pass any of those bills, attitudes are still changing rapidly on marijuana policy. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said he remains cautiously optimistic about marijuana legalization being here to stay, despite Congress' tendency to move slowly on controversial social issues like this.

"It’s all political," Nadelmann told HuffPost in an email. "Of course it’s possible that the next president could decide to crack down on the states that have legalized marijuana but that prospect becomes ever less likely with every passing day."

"Diverse sectors of society are developing a stake in marijuana remaining legal," he continued. "Taxpayers and tax collectors enjoy the revenue. Cost cutters appreciate the savings from no longer arresting so many people for marijuana. Unions welcome the new legal jobs. Businessmen, including many who vote Republican, relish the actual and potential profits."

In a similar vein, Blumenauer himselfhas predicted that before the end of the decade, the federal government will legalize weed. Federal authorities have already allowed Colorado's and Washington's historic marijuana laws to take effect, and earlier this year, President Barack Obama signed the 2014 farm bill, which legalized industrial hemp production for research purposes in the states that permit it. The first hemp crops in U.S. soil in decades are already growing.

Moreover, in May, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed bipartisan measures aimed atlimiting Drug Enforcement Administration crackdowns on state-legal medical marijuana shops, and at preventing the agency from interfering in states' legal hemp programs.

Even in gridlocked Washington, the Democratic White House and the Republican-heavy Congress have been able to see eye-to-eye over howcriminal justice and drug policy reform will be implemented in the next two years.

So what do some of the likely 2016 presidential candidates say about marijuana? On the Republican side,according to HuffPost's Pollster model, the front-runners are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Paul has been supportive of D.C.'s new recreational marijuana law, and he's also introduced legislation aimed at protecting state-legal medical marijuana operationsfrom federal intervention.

Huckabee, meanwhile, is opposed to both medical and recreational marijuana, and Bush came out against Florida's recent medical marijuana bill. At the same time, Bush has made generally supportive comments about keeping the federal government out of state marijuana laws.

On the Democratic side, the current front-runners are former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.). While Clinton hasn't offered a full-throated endorsement of marijuana legalization, she has left the door open, saying she supports medical marijuana "for people who are in extreme medical conditions." She's also said she wants to "wait and see" how recreational pot works out in Colorado and Washington state.

Biden has called legalization a "mistake" in the past, but he's also said that cracking down on marijuana users is a "waste of our resources." Warren has offered some support for medical marijuana legalization, but isopposed to recreational legalization.

"For 77 years, the United States has outlawed marijuana, with tragic repercussions and unintended consequences," Miron wrote Wednesday. "The public and their state governments are on track to rectify this terrible policy. Here's hoping Congress catches up."
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
Voters in Alaska and possibly Oregon will decide this November whether their states will join Colorado and Washington in legalizing the commercial sale and recreational use of pot. Similar initiatives are at varying stages in more than a half-dozen other states—Nevada, Arizona, and California among them—where advocates are looking toward 2016, when they hope the presidential election will turn out enough liberals to push those efforts across the finish line. All told, more than 1 in 5 Americans live in states where marijuana use has a legitimate chance to become legal between now and when President Obama leaves office.

It’s not just at the ballot box where the pro-pot crowd is putting points on the board. Lawmakers in at least 40 states have eased at least some drug laws since 2009, according to a recent Pew Research Center analysis. According to the Marijuana Policy Project, proposals to treat pot like alcohol have been introduced in 18 states and the District of Columbia this year alone. Meanwhile, 16 states have already decriminalized marijuana, according to the pro-pot group NORML—Maryland will become the 17th in October. In large swaths of the country getting caught with a small amount of weed at a concert is now roughly the same as getting a speeding ticket on the way to the show. While not leading the charge, the Obama administration is allowing states the chance to experiment. The feds have given a qualified greenlight to Colorado and Washington to dabble in recreational weed, and have even taken small steps to encourage banks to do business with those companies involved in the legal pot trade.

Given this momentum, it’s not difficult to see why 75 percent of Americans—including a majority of both those who support and those who oppose legalization—told Pew pollsters in February that they now believe it’s a matter of when, not if, the nation’s eight-decade-long prohibition of pot ends. The question is: Are they right?

This moment isn’t the first time that the United States appeared on the cusp of legalization. After steep gains in popular support during the early and mid-’70s, support for legalization climbed to 30 percent in 1978, only to plummet back into the teens the following decade as Baby Boomers became parents and Jimmy Carter’s pro-decriminalization administration gave way to Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs. “This was supposed to be inevitable then,” says Kevin Sabet, a legalization opponent and former Obama drug policy adviser who helped found Smart Approaches to Marijuana after leaving the administration. “No one could have predicted that [support] would have been wiped away so quickly.”

The pro-pot crowd isn’t ready to declare victory either. Ethan Nadelmann, who heads the Drug Policy Alliance and has spent decades in the reform trenches, says he’s of two minds when he thinks about the future. “On the one hand we have this extraordinary momentum,” he says. “On the other, public opinion can be fickle and marijuana is not going to legalize itself.”

While such caution is reasonable, it’s obvious that things are different now than they were 40 years ago, when then-record levels of support for legalization were good for little more than a vocal minority. It wasn’t until 2013 that a majority of Americans said for the first time that they supported making it legal to use weed. Support now stands at 54 percent in the most recent Pew poll, 23 points above where the legalization effort stood as recently as 2000 and 13 points higher than in 2010. Even those fickle Baby Boomers are back on board, with 52 percent now in favor—5 points more than that generation’s 1970s-era high. Meanwhile, each passing year brings us an electorate more familiar and less fearful of marijuana.

It’s not just a matter of shifting demographics. There’s also the fact that voters have increasingly gotten an up-close look at state-legal weed in the form of medical marijuana. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have legalized pot for medicinal purposes to varying degrees since California became the first to do so almost two decades ago. Voters in Florida are set to decide later this year whether they want to join that group, something that would give advocates their first voter-referendum victory in the South. (Florida law requires at least 60 percent support, however, making it a heavier lift than it has been in other states.)

Some pot opponents warn that medical marijuana serves as a Trojan Horse for the larger legalization movement, but that argument relies on Americans believing that the dangers of possibly legalizing recreational weed tomorrow outweigh the benefits of actually prescribing it to cancer patients and others in need today—a viewpoint shared by a diminishing number of Americans. While 54 percent of respondents told Pew they thought “the use of marijuana” should be made legal, things were more complicated when the question changed from a simple yes-or-noto one where people were asked to pick between three choices: 39 percent said that pot “should be legal for personal use”; 44 percent said it “should be legal only for medicinal use”; and 16 percent said it “should not be legal.” Still, the answers to the original question—“Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not?”—suggests in an all-or-nothing environment, most Americans choose the former.

Regardless, medical marijuana has already served as stepping-stone for states that have or are considering regulating the sale and use of recreational pot. In Colorado, where retail stores opened their doors on New Year’s Day, advocates were able to point to the state’s tightly regulated medical market, approved by voters in 2000, to allay fears that the state couldn’t regulate a marijuana market from scratch. To date, Colorado regulators have delivered on those promises, building a relatively hiccup-free commercial market on the back of the medical marijuana industry. (Things in Washington, where the medical market is unregulated, have proved a good deal more complicated. Residents are still waiting for the first retail stores to open 19 months since the 2012 vote.)
 
Last edited:
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
Also not only do I have water rites and know where a well CAN be drilled but the property also has a nice stream going through two ac on one corner and another larger stream rite down the opposite side as well that are easily usable but when the summer gets too hot they dry up so needing a well and I'm running dry on funds with all the other regulations needed to be attended to as well as attorney fees and so on that try and make sure the investment does not flop

As for the legalization I have not one said it would be that way for sure just said the proof is in the pudding the IRS would not be looking at a way of banking on the stores if there was not going to be some form of legalization not to mention that even if we do not get recreational we are medical and someone with the proper licensing can grow on a larger scale without concern about breaking any laws these are the only people I am looking for in Tennant possibilities not just someone growing on a large scale

And hey I know it will be hard selling someone on this here but I have many irons in the fire and looking for that one person who is as willing to risk it for great reward as I am not hoping for much but you know what they say

Nothing ventured nothing gained
 
Last edited:
waayne

waayne

3,978
263
@KiLoEleMeNt You're preaching to the choir here about legalization,but you have yet to provide any concrete information,or timeline when this "legalization " will take place.....Alaska had legal herb in the 70's ,Colorado decriminalized small amounts as well, and people were saying the exact same thing you are,they have to legalize it...well a guy named Ronald Wilson Reagan was elected and not only was it not legalized,but he just amped up the drug war to new heights......and introduced things like mandatory minimum sentences.....

The only people in NM legally allowed to grow more than 4 flowering plants per person are the states MMJ nonprofit producers....as far as I know,they all produce their product in indoor gardens..This is mostly due to the states laws regarding licensed cultivation ....The NM law makes it nearly impossible to comply with the security issues anywhere but in an indoor environment.....the NM MMJ laws are quite comprehensive,and do not allow anyone but licensed nonprofits to grow more than the patients quota of 4 flowering plants,and 12 plants in veg......So I'm not sure who you are referring to in NM
that has the proper licensing to grow more than that number, besides nonprofit producers.
 
KiLoEleMeNt

KiLoEleMeNt

1,900
263
That is exactly who I am talking about as well as those under the new Hemp practice laws that are in place I am not interested in the average grower I am looking more for people who are in the scientific fields

Twenty (20) states have defined industrial hemp as distinct and removed barriers to its production. These states will be able to take immediate advantage of the industrial hemp research and pilot program provision, Section 7606 of the Farm Bill: California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,Indiana, Kentucky, Maine,
Missouri, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee,Utah, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

Three states (Colorado, Kentucky and Vermont) in 2014 have research crops planted in accordance with section 7606, the Polis Amendment, to the Farm Bill.

Three states (Hawaii, Kentucky, and Maryland) have passed bills creating commissions or authorizing research.

Nine states have passed hemp resolutions: California, Colorado, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire,New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia.

Nine states have passed hemp study bills: Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont. Many other states have done studies without legislative directive. A complete list of state study bill legislation and state studies may be found online

State legislators and representatives of farm policy organizations, for more information about passing a resolution in support of industrial hemp or a hemp study bill please see Hemp Resolution @http://nmhemp.org/
2014 Legislative Session - U.S. State

So far in the 2014 legislative season industrial hemp legislation has been introduced or carried over in Puerto Rico and twenty-eight states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois (carried over from 2013), Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusettes, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire (carried over from 2013), New Jersey (carried over from 2013), and new bill introduction as well, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington (two bills were carried over from 2013), West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The New Jersey bills from 2013 were passed in January of 2014, but were pocket vetoed by Governor Christie.

113th Congress - U.S. Federal

Two industrial hemp bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress so far. H.R. 525, the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2013," was introduced in the U.S. House on February 6, 2013 by Rep. Tom Massie. A companion bill, S. 359, was introduced in the U.S. Senate on February 14, 2013 by Senator Ron Wyden. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is an original cosponsor. The bills define industrial hemp, exclude it from the definition of "marihuana" in the Controlled Substances Act, and gives states the exclusive authority to regulate the growing and processing of industrial hemp under state law. Also, On February 7, 2014, President Obama signed the Farm Bill of 2013 into law. Section 7606 of the act defines industrial hemp as distinct and authorizes institutions of higher education or State departments of agriculture in states where hemp is legal to grow hemp for research or agricultural pilot programs.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom