11 ms·

Completely agree. The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business. I think good growers will

by fjabre 16y ago

Completely agree. The only issue I have is I don't want to see Philip Morris buy up all of NoCal and force everyone out of business. I think good growers will still be able to demand a premium for their marijuana no matter what happens in November.

illumin8 16y ago
Good point; the best growers will always have a market for their product. NorCal is a lot like Napa Valley... some of the best wines in the world, if you know what I mean.
- WiseWeasel 16y ago
  The prostitutes? They're nothing to write home about.
muhfuhkuh 16y ago
Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc. The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals. It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.
- mattmaroon 16y ago
  Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    "It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
    - abstractbill 16y ago
      ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
      - Alex3917 16y ago
        I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
        hugh3 16y ago
        This really seems to fall into the "if this were really true, why haven't I heard of it until now?" category. There's an awful lot of people who could make an awful lot of money if they could prove that non-American cigarettes don't give you cancer.
        louislouis 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

by fjabre 16y ago

illumin8 16y ago

Good point; the best growers will always have a market for their product. NorCal is a lot like Napa Valley... some of the best wines in the world, if you know what I mean.

WiseWeasel 16y ago
The prostitutes? They're nothing to write home about.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

Philip Morris makes tobacco a commodity. They'll surely treat cannabis the same way: grown outdoors with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, irradiated (not that that would matter, I guess, but it will be), sprayed with preservatives and who know what the hell else, etc. The good growers will do so in climate-controlled, forced-flowering, sea-of-green indoor operations using massive lighting arrays and "low rider" hybrid strains that produce gigantic buds with amazing crystals. It'll be like comparing "two buck chuck" wine at Trader Joe's to a Lafite Rothschild or Screaming Eagle. Most people won't care, but there is a market for the latter like you wouldn't believe.

mattmaroon 16y ago
Yep, I think marijuana would more closely resemble the beer and wine industries than cigarettes given the differences from one strain/grower to another. It wouldn't surprise me if PM became the Budweiser of the group, but that wouldn't push out the Sierra Nevadas. It would just make them have to be better.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "It would just make them have to be better." The best weed on the market is already close to being as good as it's going to get. The real trick is going to be establishing brands with reasonably consistent quality. Right now even if you only go to the dispensaries with the highest Yelp ratings, it's still hit or miss on any given strain. What I think you will see though is that people who smoke Philip Morris weed will start getting cancer, in the same way that smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes. (Because of all the chemicals, the filters, and the fact that they're grown in radioactive soil w/ fertilizers that bind to uranium.)
  - abstractbill 16y ago
    ...smoking didn't cause cancer until PM starting making cigarettes... I would be very surprised to find out this is true. Do you have a citation?
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      I'm sure there are better sources, but here is the first one I could find from Wikipedia: http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/1/4 Also, about the uranium, the typical smoker gets the equivalent of 300 chest x-rays per year from smoking American cigarettes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/opinion/01proctor.html Which probably explains why even today smokers in countries that don't use American cigarettes don't have anywhere near the same increase in lung cancer risk.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        This really seems to fall into the "if this were really true, why haven't I heard of it until now?" category. There's an awful lot of people who could make an awful lot of money if they could prove that non-American cigarettes don't give you cancer.
      - louislouis 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]