Growers struggle with glut of legal pot in Washington state

AP via finance.yahoo.com ^ | Jan 16, 2015 | Gene Johnson

[posterchild]

SEATTLE (AP) — Washington's legal marijuana market opened last summer to a dearth of weed. Some stores periodically closed because they didn't have pot to sell. Prices were through the roof.

Six months later, the equation has flipped, bringing serious growing pains to the new industry.

A big harvest of sun-grown marijuana from eastern Washington last fall flooded the market. Prices are starting to come down in the state's licensed pot shops, but due to the glut, growers are — surprisingly — struggling to sell their marijuana. Some are already worried about going belly-up, finding it tougher than expected to make a living in legal weed.

"It's an economic nightmare," says Andrew Seitz, general manager at Dutch Brothers Farms in Seattle.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why do you not argue for an amendment explicitly granting the authority to Congress to regulate it?

Should we need a constitutional amendment authorizing congress the power of regulating pathogenic research labs? I think most people would acknowledge that they have that power already. What about deadly Chemicals such as cyanide or strychnine? Same thing.

Marijuana looks more like a gateway to treason against the republic than to heroin.

I am not following you here. I do not understand what you are getting at. Marijuana appears to me to be just another one of those slippery slopes to worse things. If we let it in, it won't be long before cocaine is knocking at the door, and bringing all it's previously weed toking new converts.

[DiogenesLamp]

The effects of chemicals on the brain are always varied among the population. In other words, 80% might have response A, while 15% have response B, 5% response C, etc.

Your accomplishments on pot as one individual don’t tell us anything. Congratulations, however, on the impressive things you’ve done. All the best to you, and to your son.

Thank you for making that point. A lot of people think that because drug "A" doesn't effect them badly, then it must be harmless for everybody. They don't realize that people have differing levels of susceptibility and what is tolerable for them may be too much for someone else.

[tacticalogic]

Marijuana appears to me to be just another one of those slippery slopes to worse things.

And your solution appears to be one of the slippery slopes to something worse than that. If Anthrax = cyanide = marijuana, then hydrogen bombs = tanks = handguns. If the power of congress is public whim then we do not live in a constitutional republic, we live in a propaganda construct.

[DiogenesLamp]

And your solution appears to be one of the slippery slopes to something worse than that.

Libertarian fascistic bugaboogery. Another appeal to the specter of the evil Fascist monster that is always lurking under our bed to steal from us *REAL* freedoms if we don't indulge the dope addict nutters among us.

Sell it to somebody else buddy. We outlawed drugs back in 1914, and I don't think anyone is gonna buy your "We've lost freedom because of it" argument. So they added Pot to the list in the 1930s. Waaaaahhhhhh!!!! Cry me a river.

We'll get Fascism a lot faster if you collapse society by unleashing massive drug addiction. That *DID* happen in real life. It happened in China.

[tacticalogic]

We'll get Fascism a lot faster if you collapse society by unleashing massive drug addiction. That *DID* happen in real life. It happened in China.

This isn't China. The States are not powerless serfdoms unable to govern themselves, and you can pound your cartoon bullshit where the sun doesn't shine.

[DiogenesLamp]

This isn't China.

You think different geography makes a difference to drug addiction? You think occidentals are immuned to narcotic chemicals? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but what wrecked China can wreck us as well.

The States are not powerless serfdoms unable to govern themselves,

Which means what? That because they have a border or something the disease is gonna stay on the other side or something?

and you can pound your cartoon bullshit where the sun doesn't shine.

And that, folks, is how you can tell when you've stung someone with a zinger!

[Pelham]

The rise and fall of penny gin in Britain:

http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Mothers-Ruin/

[tacticalogic]

You’re one sick puppy.

[DiogenesLamp]

The rise and fall of penny gin in Britain:

http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Mothers-Ruin/

Thank you for making me aware of that. It conforms quite well with my understanding of human nature and the necessities of governance. This passage is quite significant.

Gin rendered men impotent, and women sterile, and was a major reason why the birth rate in London at this time was exceeded by the death rate.

Fecundity is a very significant national security issue, and has always been so throughout human history. A government can survive a lot of things, but a significant enough population loss is not one of them.

If you do not have enough people to defend it, you will shortly no longer have a government. It is a NECESSITY that a government prevent anything which causes a significant enough loss to it's population base.

Europe and Japan are currently in very serious trouble due to this very thing. They are dying but are too stupid to realize it and take steps to correct it.

[Mad Dawgg]

Here is your problem. The CDC has reported 0 Marijuana Deaths.

And claiming that people dieing of meth because they smoked weed is what we call a huge load of horseshit.

Those same people who died of meth ALL drank water so then water causes Meth death.

Sorry but your claims can't be backed up.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry but your claims can't be backed up.

You might try reading a little further down the page.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3247496/posts?page=250#250

[Mad Dawgg]

So the marijuana killed him or was it the fall?

I bet he also drank water that day. And since he drank water he then died of water also.

I will again point out the CDC has reported zero deaths from marijuana.

Dieing after smoking weed when you fell from a height is not dieing from weed it is dieing from falling from a high place.

Maybe you need someone to explain basic logic to you before you continue to engage in debate.

[DiogenesLamp]

So the marijuana killed him or was it the fall?

You are obviously not to be taken seriously. Causality seems to escape you.

I will again point out the CDC has reported zero deaths from marijuana.

This has no significance whatsoever.

Maybe you need someone to explain basic logic to you before you continue to engage in debate.

And now my day is complete. "Mad Dawg" is lecturing me about "logic." Thanks for the amusement, but i'll pass on any more discourse with you.

[offwhite]

"A Pro-pot drug counselor? What is wrong with this picture?"

Everything.

[offwhite]

"The CDC has reported 0 Marijuana Deaths."

That would be an excellent point if marijuana was prohibited because it killed people.

But marijuana is not prohibited because it kills people.

[offwhite]

"So the marijuana killed him or was it the fall?"

Neither. It was the sudden stop.

[Mad Dawgg]

"but i'll pass on any more discourse with you."

Prudent choice. When you are outmatched it is wise to leave the field of battle.

[Mad Dawgg]

"That would be an excellent point if marijuana was prohibited because it killed people.

But marijuana is not prohibited because it kills people."

No its prohibited because the pharmaceutical companies what it that way.

They don't want the competition.

[ConservingFreedom]

No it's not - it could equally well be that in America 2% is the maximum level of inclination to use drugs -

An assertion which is totally destroyed by actual historical proof such as this:

No, evidence from China doesn't disprove a hypothesis about America.

recalling, as I've explained to you several times, that addiction experts agree that drug use and addiction are not solely about biochemistry.

your argumentum ad vericundium is irrelevant to the point.

LOL! And if I posted the research on the basis of which addiction experts agree that drug use and addiction are not solely about biochemistry, you'd dismiss it as agenda-driven BS. Nice self-contained bubble you've got there.

biochemistry is an essential ingredient to addiction

Which doesn't contradict the fact that drug use and addiction are not solely about biochemistry.

[ConservingFreedom]

substance that tampers with brain chemistry might cause psychosis in some people.

We should imprison people for possessing substances that MIGHT adversely affect SOME people?

Try that with Plutonium, Anthrax or Sarin

You're saying those only MIGHT adversely affect SOME people?

I see you never responded to this point: Do you have any idea how many pot users are psychotic killers? Just about none of them.

You must be high now. I've previously listed half a dozen or more psychotic killers who smoke(d) weed.

Which part of "just about" did you not understand?