[fireman15]

Washington's scheme didn't allow for individual cultivation for personal use, as I understand it. That makes it much different from most State schemes.

That is because for the people actively pushing for legalization it was never about “helping” people. It was always about making money.

[SaxxonWoods]

“That is because for the people actively pushing for legalization it was never about “helping” people. It was always about making money.”

That is correct for both the public and private sector. It’s about money. And like the lottery, one can participate or not. I never buy lottery tickets.

[gundog]

That kind of surprises me, considering Washington’s urban demographic. Was it a law that arose through initiative petition/referendum, or through the legislature? Just looking around, I saw that there’s a move afoot to legalize recreational cultivation. Sounds like that’s originating in the legislature.

As with so many subjects, it seems to come down to two sides pretty mush trying to court the squishy middle to tip the balance in their favor. Tax revenue is usually one of the arguements used by the pro-weed bunch. I assume that legal cultivation would increase revenue on one end(selling cloned plants in dispensaries), and potentially undercut it on the other end(reduced consumption of State-grown weed.)

Seems like someone would work up some enthusiasm for an initiative petition. ( Irony noted.)