Log In Register

how much are dispensaries paying for a pound?

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

how much are dispensaries paying for a pound?

danko 1,729 Replies 383,978 Views
Page 17 of 87 · Replies 321–340 of 1,730
I don't know Sea, I think people are getting more worked up over this than warranted. There's no way they can stop people from smoking or growing it. I'd agree they may be trying to set up a frame work for a corporate take over, but I am very skeptical how successful they will be at that. Plus a lot of people seem to forget that a good 95%+ of the clubs here in Cali have never operated legally, even by state law. I've been telling people this for a long time - if you sold cannabis to a club, you broke the law, and so did the club who purchased it. The only thing that surprises me about this situation is that it took so long for it to happen. People here have gotten extremely lax about the MMJ laws and regulations and virtually no one follows them anymore. Also considering that a lot of the clubs are run by organized crime and other less than honest individuals, who do nothing other than screw over patients and farmers, it makes me have a hard time feeling sorry for them.
 
F

foothillfarmin

Guest
You mean clubs actually paid people, not what I have seen and heard, i always knew it to be different, the clubs only screwed the grower....I mean where would any club be if it were not for the "experienced " growers out there? Not in business, and they shouldnt be anyways, crooked greed mongers, and please tell me different, I mean I have heard several club owners whine about this cost and that, but when you ask them where their high dollar lifestyle came from they start stuttering for an answer, what a joke!!!!
And yes there are many a grower out there that is greedier than fuck as well and it will never change, you take the good with the bad if you cant get the f out, better for the rest of us anyway!!!!
 
I think indoor growers should be more worried about the incoming flood of outdoor crop more than the Fed's cracking down on dispensaries. Besides, screw the clubs...they low ball growers anyway.

I completely agree with foothillfarmin!
 
I`m wondering just how flooded it will be this year myself. I think the rains will lower supply some and quality as well in Cali. But way more is still being grown than is used in this state. The East also took a big hit because of weather and the South got little to no rain while much of the country got floods and storms. It`s just hard to say what supply will be like nation wide but Cali will have extras,just maybe a little less than last year.
 
I agree w/ everybody on one level or another. There are no dispensaries in my county and now Santa Barbara is shutting down according to the NPR report I just heard.

If any state is loaded, it's Cali. Hell, practically everyone that I know and their brothers have plants in their backyards and have or are near harvest. There was an untimely rain in wine country which was threatening the harvest, but it was shorter than expected, the sun was bright the next day and the winds blew away the surface moisture. I assume that also helped outdoor mj growers out, here (central coast) and up north, as well.

I also agree that the feds are on a rampage and pounding their chests more than normal, ATM. Timing their move to coincide w/ 2011's outdoor harvest was a good move, if your on their side. We'll have to wait until the dust settles to see how much the local industry will be hit. Lining up new distribution options and not counting on the dispensaries to liquidate product is prolly a good idea.

On the bright side for Cali growers- less Mexican product; down yields in other areas of country w/ this year's extreme weather (heat) conditions, I would think.
 
I would think less Mexican product would be irrelevant unless you step outside the bounds of legality anyway. My two cents...also the unusually long rainy cool season (late May this year) probably effected outdoors crops for sure...should have pushed harvest date way back or cut the yield I would think.
 
I would think less Mexican product would be irrelevant unless you step outside the bounds of legality anyway.
Well excuse me. That comes across as a bit puritanical to me, but than I've been on the front lines for awhile. I stepped out of the bounds of legality35 out of 43 years I've been smokin' and jokin' if my math is right.

I would have agreed w/ you a few years ago- hell, when they passed the law I thought I'd gone to Nirvana and back. Gotta stay legal- gotta stay legal- bad 4 the movement/others if u/i don't. Get screwed and set back by a branch of the federal government that is overstepping, manipulative, and disingenuously subverting the laws to their interpretation take money out of your family and friend's pockets, folks that dotted the i's and crossed the t's to do it the right way...ahh but i rant.

I'm actually cool w/ your opinion and share the hope that the harassment will end and we can all be legal all, (or at least most) of the time. Peace bto.
 
For the record Ganja, I wasn't trying to come off as a holy'er than thou/straight arrows ass at all. I was actually posing the question more than anything. The thread is about dispensaries after all. I totally agree...everyone likely steps out-of-bounds in some way or another in the quest to vend/grow ganja!!!
 
I see, how uninterested in true medicinal use of their supplies they are. Attitude towards hash and concentrates the same? As for the predicted flood, will this include a proportional flood of concentrates? This is all me assuming they even buy it in the first place. I don't go to dispensaries as you probably guessed.
 
too bad the clubs rip us off still at $60 a 1/8th....these clubs are out of hand on their prices....they are paying approx $15 per 1/8th....whats that a 300% markup.....rediculous.....

same price as black market ??? its 60 an 1/8 over here 2000 miles away lol
 
I disagree, I think it's not only possible, it's likely given the current climate. Between the feds and the state, the future of MMJ ain't lookin' too bright. Add to that the tax audits of clubs, and where does that leave us? With cannabis becoming exactly like tobacco and distilled spirits--completely illegal to make on your own, but you can possess, and pay through the nose for the privilege. This is setting up the framework for pharmaceutical production, which sets up the framework for a tighter taxation scheme. If the government decides that the ONLY appropriate use for cannabis is medical, then we'll be breaking the law if we don't use properly prescribed medication.

and you better believe this is the direction its headed and wont be any thing as good as your growing and you will pay out your ass. hell smokes are 8.50 here and like 12 in new york - pot prices would be insane......... :mad0233:
 
For the record Ganja, I wasn't trying to come off as a holy'er than thou/straight arrows ass at all. I was actually posing the question more than anything. The thread is about dispensaries after all. I totally agree...everyone likely steps out-of-bounds in some way or another in the quest to vend/grow ganja!!!
Cool dude. I just felt that the statement categorized, negated and brushed aside my previous statement about a lower influx of imports and it's effect on the US/Cali mj economy. That's all. I just wanted to make sure that the concept continued to have a voice... and I got a little perturbed. But, it's not worth arguing about from where I sit.
 
wow. If it is really like that up here in norcal for premium meds....I am pissed off too. That is not compassion, that is highway robbery. Shoot...on the streets people pay 2000/lb for mid quality outdoor, even boo boo if desperate. Glad I don't have to deal with buying too much :D

I'm pretty sure that 2000 a lb number is really low - jesus i get 440 a zip for og around here of course it 2000 miles away but if i was growing top of the line dank , i would not let it go at 2000 a lb just my humbile opionon
 
Out of staters who come to Cali to buy have been paying around $1500=2000 per and get the markup from the risk of transport. They generaly run into the lesser expirenced newbee growers trying to dump there lower to mid grade for what ever they can get ,not expireinced growers with dank.That`s causing a bunch of out of state growers to get lower prices for what they grow and they are pissed about all the Cali `turky bag` going around in there market.Most of the newbee growers thought they would put some seeds in the ground and wait to get rich,LOL!
 
In response to the original question in this thread: Talked to dispensary owner in norcal (Sac) yesterday and says they pay 1200 per lb for top quality outdoor meds. :sweating

The small grower and patients who cannot grow their own and depend on storefronts for access are the losers.

Is the time right for small growers and patients to work together to eliminate the middle man? If so, how do we make that happen? Just some rambling thoughts this morning.
 
I like the question Canna.. and I like the Idea of bbreaking down the Machine before it turns into fucking Megatron. lol
 
In response to the original question in this thread: Talked to dispensary owner in norcal (Sac) yesterday and says they pay 1200 per lb for top quality outdoor meds. :sweating

The small grower and patients who cannot grow their own and depend on storefronts for access are the losers.

Is the time right for small growers and patients to work together to eliminate the middle man? If so, how do we make that happen? Just some rambling thoughts this morning.
I don't know if we can do that. There is nothing in 215 or what remains of SB420 that would protect us. In my county I've been advised that cooperatives and collectives, outside a true caregivership, are specifically illegal.

And then there's this ruling, from one of our state appellate courts. Dispensaries are going down the drain.

Cities can't give permits to pot clubs, court says

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, October 6, 2011


Federal law prohibits California cities from issuing permits to collectives authorizing them to supply marijuana to medical patients, a state appeals court has ruled, raising questions about the scope of local regulation of pot dispensaries.


In overturning a Long Beach ordinance, the court said the city went a step beyond California's action in 1996, when state voters eliminated criminal penalties for patients who used marijuana with a doctor's approval.


Deciding not to prosecute someone for drug use doesn't conflict with the federal ban on marijuana possession and distribution, the court said. It also said a city's restrictions on marijuana dispensaries, such as limiting their locations and operating hours, wouldn't violate either federal or state law.


But by issuing permits that let a certain number of pot collectives operate within city limits, the court said, Long Beach has put a stamp of approval on an activity that federal law forbids and is interfering with nationwide drug enforcement.


"The city's ordinance ... goes beyond decriminalization into authorization," the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said in a 3-0 ruling Tuesday.


Long Beach could appeal to the state Supreme Court or could try to revise its ordinance, either by following the appellate panel's guidelines on regulations or by banning dispensaries altogether. The city attorney's office did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.


Medical marijuana advocates said the ruling, if it stands, will set new criteria for the diverse rules on pot suppliers adopted by many cities and counties since California voters approved the law in 1996.


"It makes it more difficult for cities (to regulate), but I don't think it eliminates their authority," said attorney Michael Risher of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco. He said cities could apply health, safety and zoning laws to marijuana collectives.


Although the ruling appears to prohibit local governments from limiting the number of suppliers by issuing permits, a city could largely reach that goal by requiring dispensaries to locate in certain zones and at certain distances from each other, said attorney Ruthann Ziegler, who has represented cities in other marijuana cases.


The Long Beach ordinance limits dispensary locations and operating hours, sets safety standards including laboratory testing of the drugs, and requires dispensaries to pay a nonrefundable application fee of more than $14,000 and an annual renewal fee of at least $10,000 if they win a lottery for a permit.



But Matthew Pappas, lawyer for two patients who challenged the ordinance after their collectives did not qualify for permits, said Long Beach is actually trying to ban medical marijuana collectives. He said one client's dispensary was the target of a raid in May by more than 25 officers who used a battering ram to break down the door.


"Patients don't have any problems with reasonable restrictions," Pappas said. But he contended a local ban on dispensaries would violate federal disability law, a position he argued in another Southern California case now pending before a federal appeals court.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/05/BA261LDSIS.DTL

So, what the court is saying is that no one can PERMIT a dispensary in an attempt to regulate. They can limit, they can outright ban, but they absolutely may not permit them. Despite that one little section in 215.
 
Do you think *they* would leave us alone if we adhered to the state AGs original guidelines and made our collectives "closed circles/limited memberships" where the growers and patients dealt with each other quietly and out of the public eye?

Truthfully, there was nothing in the guidelines, as best I can recall without looking them up again, that allowed dispensaries/storefronts in the first place. They did not want the advertising and retail atmosphere that we now have (it scares and worries the non-canna public - who are also voters) but were willing to turn a blind eye to patients and growers in small, closed circles. Now we have all hell raining down on us. I think we overstepped too soon for the current climate and now they are pissed and exerting their muscle.
 
I think that if so many weren't making such an open mockery of MMJ, if it were just a little bit more difficult for people to acquire recommendations, and if dispensaries were allowed to operate as a legitimate business with appropriate checks and balances (private memberships could be one), then it would have made it far more difficult for the government to go after 'us.'

However, I also suspect that the way is being paved for big pharma to take control of this train and enjoy the financial gains here, and that they have the pull (that we don't, even as voters we really always will, as a whole, vote in those least interested in us) to get the government to clamp down on public acquisition, and soon perhaps home-growing. There is a LOT of money to be made here, it just has to be done 'right,' and that's what I think these folks are saying among themselves.

There is nothing that allows for dispensaries. There is really nothing that specifically allows for cooperatives or collectives as far as I can interpret, either. Only the exhortation in writing in 215 is to please, baby, please will you do this for us, for we, the people? Someone wants in on it badly enough for paying taxes on the income to not be enough motivation for what is ostensibly 'our' government to feel motivated enough to land on our side, instead of what it's actually doing.
 
I think that if so many weren't making such an open mockery of MMJ, if it were just a little bit more difficult for people to acquire recommendations, and if dispensaries were allowed to operate as a legitimate business with appropriate checks and balances (private memberships could be one), then it would have made it far more difficult for the government to go after 'us.'

However, I also suspect that the way is being paved for big pharma to take control of this train and enjoy the financial gains here, and that they have the pull (that we don't, even as voters we really always will, as a whole, vote in those least interested in us) to get the government to clamp down on public acquisition, and soon perhaps home-growing. There is a LOT of money to be made here, it just has to be done 'right,' and that's what I think these folks are saying among themselves.

There is nothing that allows for dispensaries. There is really nothing that specifically allows for cooperatives or collectives as far as I can interpret, either. Only the exhortation in writing in 215 is to please, baby, please will you do this for us, for we, the people? Someone wants in on it badly enough for paying taxes on the income to not be enough motivation for what is ostensibly 'our' government to feel motivated enough to land on our side, instead of what it's actually doing.

Hear ya, SM. Big Pharma is a dangerous foe to be sure. They have even tried to eliminate compounding pharmacies (sp?) in order to force us to buy only their standard dose 'ceuticals. In example, some women need very specific doses of various hormones that only compounders can supply. Custom made to order for the individual's needs per tests and doctors orders. It befuddles me how the gov can presume to have say so in peoples health and the choices they make in being treated.

Gotten way off topic to thread. Sorry. Interesting discussion tho. :-)
 
Page 17 of 87 · Replies 321–340 of 1,730
Back
Top Bottom