As fast as everyone got there licences to grow or what ever is as fast as it will be taken away ,,
Government see's and Huge multi billion dollar corps are probably already hashing out deals under the table ..
Its a matter of time this is why its still a schedule drug The Government will never let you be fully legal ,
How stupid we must be to think they would would you give up power or the Say if you were in there shoes ? Hell no
Will there be private growers out there For sure think of it like a Franchise,, with few stipulations like one must have 2 million dollars of there own money non borrowed
I honestly think The gov has been using everyone as Guinea pigs in the MJ industry. its big money sure everyone will be allowed to grow probably few plants once rules change ..
and for the bigger grow licenses they will choke you out by stupid insurances or yearly licenses making literally impossible to operate stupid water charge or something to that effect to bankrupt you
Are you joking? It is difficult for me to take someone seriously or to even understand when posts look like they were typed by Helen Keller. purpletrain, what the hell are you trying to say here?
Specifically, what do you mean about insurance? Being a state-based regulated model, health insurance will never cover a claim arising from marijuana, medical or otherwise. The language in the law, the actual text, not someone's interpretation, specifically addresses this and it says that insurance companies are not able to be held liable for marijuana. You might call it a prescription, but as far as your health insurance goes, no way. We were sneaking pot buys through HSA and FSA's but that well ran dry pretty quickly.
Seamaiden, I forget you are in Cali. I will give you legalization in a 'handful' of years, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the timeline. I do not believe legalization will happen across the board. I don't think it will ever rise to the front of any national elections, it will always be a state-by-state process, unless something major changes. It seems to me that the industry here in Colorado is somewhat steady. There are always shops changing hands and I can't keep up with all of the name changes and rules and regs and medical vs rec and the political atmosphere's in those areas where legalization is moving forward fairly quickly. I see nebraska and kansas as good examples that some states are still pretty far away from legalization. I do not see how any sort of constituional amendment or supreme court case that would establish precedent or otherwise remove the enforcement power of the commerce clause as it relates to interstate commerce. That's how obamanure was upheld by the supremes, saying congress can in fact force Americans to purchase insurance (the Individual Mandate that was upheld by the SC).
I think it is important to note the dissenting opinion on that case, as I believe the same thing will happen to keep marijuana illegal at the federal level. I do not see Congress deciding to control marijuana by making it legal. If we are talking about legalization, then I think there are more voters in non-pot states than pro-pot voters in pot states. I think I said that correctly. What would happen to the population currently in jail for marijuana offenses? If it's legal then why are they in jail? Should marijuana convictions be tossed or re-tried if legalization occurs? I fail to see any likelihood of that happening, let alone full legalization. Don't we have to get over the 'pot is bad and dangerous' argument before we can even discuss it being legal? How would legalization work in conservative states that hate marijuana?
Justice Thomas had a dissenting comment on the ACA:
I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and The Chief Justice correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate “economic activity [that] substantially affects interstate commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995) . I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (Thomas, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1–69 (2005) (Thomas, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedented claim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.
