One license per pot grower, state says

Comments

1
And the bureaucratic jujitsu continues.

What a shock that the WSLCB, a group wholly beholden to the alcohol industry, moves the goalposts on I-502 implementation yet again. Colorado has a system in place 13 months after the vote, but Washington is still playing hide & seek with its vague rules that counties & cities have determined can just be ignored even when enacted.

Putting the Liquor Control Board in charge of legal marijuana implementation is like putting that nazi pope Joey Ratz in charge of eliminating child molesting priests. It's the opposite of a solution.
2
So our state has the ability to create a good (the right to grow pot) so valuable the demand for licenses is 3x the number of licenses they've artificially limited themselves to? A logical system would be to create a bidding system for the licenses they do release, rather than cutting them into smaller and smaller pieces.
3
“Additional production is likely necessary for the state to capture an increasing percentage as the market refines and matures. Agency rules allow for flexibility to meet an evolving controlled market,” the board said in its news release."

Flexibility?
How long do you suppose it takes to react to changes in the market from the day prices are too high to the day new inventory has been approved, grown, processed, and available at retail?
4
Seems to favor the smaller operations. This is a good thing, I think. Spread the wealth and avoid the top heavy mega grow which is not the feds favorite paradigm..;-D
5
Who thought it would be a good idea for the liquor board to manage this? Or anything? I know it was in the initiative. It's still stupid. Where are the Free Market Republicans opposing this socialist gubmint regulation?
6
As a very poor cannabis patient who can't grow his own due to health problems, I very strongly oppose this as it will dramatically increase the cost of my medication.