3 ms·

Big Money has been flowing into Canadian canna-startups for years, featuring absolutely massive operations. Founders are claiming that their capacity is intende

by Dowwie 8y ago

Big Money has been flowing into Canadian canna-startups for years, featuring absolutely massive operations. Founders are claiming that their capacity is intended to supply the "International Market". I don't see how this is possible in state-regulated marketplaces, though. Why would, for instance, Massachusetts or California regulators allow local dispensaries to sell imported product? Even intra-state trade is uncertain.

moate 8y ago
It's not "why would California allow Colorado weed to get sold there" it's "will the Feds get involved because it's now an interstate commerce issue". IDK that the individual states would care where the product is being brought in from (hey, just tax the out of state stuff when it crosses the border!) because it doesn't limit their ability to influence/control the sale and usage in their state. You can exist in a gray area of "states rights" if everything is done in house. Eventually, the US will likely tip this way. The blue states are on board because they often see it as a criminal justice issue and taxable market. The red states will eventually want to get in on those agriculture jobs as their economies continue to slump (and as the older voters die out, since statistic show that younger generations have fewer issues with it).
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It's not "why would California allow Colorado weed to get sold there" it's "will the Feds get involved because it's now an interstate commerce issue". Wickard v. Filburn made it pretty clear that it's an interstate commerce issue way before that. The federal restraint on internal state-legalized trade is forbearance, not tied to any Constitutional principle. > IDK that the individual states would care where the product is being brought in from (hey, just tax the out of state stuff when it crosses the border!) Since when are state import duties not expressly prohibited by the Constitution?

by Dowwie 8y ago

moate 8y ago

It's not "why would California allow Colorado weed to get sold there" it's "will the Feds get involved because it's now an interstate commerce issue". IDK that the individual states would care where the product is being brought in from (hey, just tax the out of state stuff when it crosses the border!) because it doesn't limit their ability to influence/control the sale and usage in their state. You can exist in a gray area of "states rights" if everything is done in house. Eventually, the US will likely tip this way. The blue states are on board because they often see it as a criminal justice issue and taxable market. The red states will eventually want to get in on those agriculture jobs as their economies continue to slump (and as the older voters die out, since statistic show that younger generations have fewer issues with it).

dragonwriter 8y ago
> It's not "why would California allow Colorado weed to get sold there" it's "will the Feds get involved because it's now an interstate commerce issue". Wickard v. Filburn made it pretty clear that it's an interstate commerce issue way before that. The federal restraint on internal state-legalized trade is forbearance, not tied to any Constitutional principle. > IDK that the individual states would care where the product is being brought in from (hey, just tax the out of state stuff when it crosses the border!) Since when are state import duties not expressly prohibited by the Constitution?