8 ms·

It all comes down to local control of licensing. To even operate a 100% mobile business, you have to be licensed out of a specific city. This involves all the a

It all comes down to local control of licensing. To even operate a 100% mobile business, you have to be licensed out of a specific city. This involves all the associated cronyism, NIMBYism, and the like which goes along with local politics, and grinds the whole system to a halt. We need to adopt a statewide system like Oregon or there will be no room for smaller distributors left and we will be stuck with monopolized pricing.

nine_k 8y ago
Some may see high monopolized prices and having to jump through hoops as "fair": that is, cannabis use is not "good" and thus should not be made easy or cheap. See alcohol and tobacco. IDK if this mindset is widespread enough in California. But coincidentally such an approach does improve the bottom line of large / established sellers.
- bcOpus 8y ago
  Then those people are actively seeking to maintain the supremacy of the black market, despite decades of evidence as to the inability of such measures to reduce consumption. Maybe people who have such ignorant and baseless beliefs shouldn’t be heeded.
  - noobiemcfoob 8y ago
    Yeah, but they don't and won't see it that way. The people with these types of reactions seem to think things go away when you make them illegal (probably aided by them having never actually seen the problem firsthand anyway). You can choose to heed their views or not, but they still get to vote the same as you.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Ah the classic baptists and bootleggers connection - making things worse for everyone except them.
wpietri 8y ago
I'm personally fine with local control, and despite the negative tone of this article, it all sounds pretty normal to me. I live in SF, where there are a variety of shops. The ones I walk by all seem clean, orderly, and well run. Certainly more so than some liquor stores I can think of. So I'm happy to have them as neighbors. That said, I understand why other cities would have been more reluctant to license. Not everybody needs or wants to be a pioneer. If we're still having the same problems 5 years out, I'll be more concerned. But personally, I'm a big fan of subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made as low down in the power structure as possible. [1] That different people are deciding differently right now is how we'll learn the best ways to do it. There's no urgent problem here that requires a centralized solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
- trhway 8y ago
  [IANAL] if my city and all the others around prohibit such stores it is de-facto equivalent to Prohibition in that area while the state level amendment granted that right to all the people in the state, and no local government has the power to exclude it own particular local area from the amendment. The same principle as with for example right to vote with no voting place in N (for sufficiently large N) miles radius.
  - shams93 8y ago
    Yeah ultimately you're being stripped of your state given rights by a locality run by cronies where it takes millions jus to win a seat on the local board of supervisors. Even though we do have ballot initiatives, a non-democratic, corrupt local process can ultimately strip you basically of all your rights. This also impacts criminalizing poverty by local governments where basically being low income and being there is a crime.
    - repsilat 8y ago
      > stripped of your state given rights That seems like a strong way to put it... How about "stripped of opportunities not taken away by the state"? California didn't give anyone a "right" to buy/use weed, they just said they wouldn't stop you. Notably, it's still illegal at the federal level...
bobthepanda 8y ago
I mean, is that not similar to how liquor and bar licensing works? A dispensary is not all that different from the other vices.
- datavirtue 8y ago
  With that attitude the black market will continue to dominate. And, no, it is not how that works. I can walk into any number of grocery stores in any state and buy a cart load of alcohol and people will smile and snicker when they see me do it.
iseeyoubydesign 8y ago
that really doesnt make sense ... In California people will drive for pot if they want it. Its a very mobile state. This local sales problem would not impact sales nearly as much as you think. But I ask , have any numbers?
LeoPanthera 8y ago
The town I live in in the bay area (south) pre-emptively passed an ordinance re-banning pot before it was even made legal. They didn't take a vote, they just did it.
coldtea 8y ago
>It all comes down to local control of licensing. To even operate a 100% mobile business, you have to be licensed out of a specific city Why would it take the ability to have a "100% mobile business" to make it a booming market?
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  I think the grandparent comment just switched some words around. I think it's meant to be read as "To operate even a 100% mobile business...". I.e., these restrictions apply even if your business is 100% mobile.

nine_k 8y ago

Some may see high monopolized prices and having to jump through hoops as "fair": that is, cannabis use is not "good" and thus should not be made easy or cheap. See alcohol and tobacco. IDK if this mindset is widespread enough in California. But coincidentally such an approach does improve the bottom line of large / established sellers.

bcOpus 8y ago
Then those people are actively seeking to maintain the supremacy of the black market, despite decades of evidence as to the inability of such measures to reduce consumption. Maybe people who have such ignorant and baseless beliefs shouldn’t be heeded.
- noobiemcfoob 8y ago
  Yeah, but they don't and won't see it that way. The people with these types of reactions seem to think things go away when you make them illegal (probably aided by them having never actually seen the problem firsthand anyway). You can choose to heed their views or not, but they still get to vote the same as you.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Ah the classic baptists and bootleggers connection - making things worse for everyone except them.

wpietri 8y ago

I'm personally fine with local control, and despite the negative tone of this article, it all sounds pretty normal to me. I live in SF, where there are a variety of shops. The ones I walk by all seem clean, orderly, and well run. Certainly more so than some liquor stores I can think of. So I'm happy to have them as neighbors. That said, I understand why other cities would have been more reluctant to license. Not everybody needs or wants to be a pioneer. If we're still having the same problems 5 years out, I'll be more concerned. But personally, I'm a big fan of subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made as low down in the power structure as possible. [1] That different people are deciding differently right now is how we'll learn the best ways to do it. There's no urgent problem here that requires a centralized solution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

trhway 8y ago
[IANAL] if my city and all the others around prohibit such stores it is de-facto equivalent to Prohibition in that area while the state level amendment granted that right to all the people in the state, and no local government has the power to exclude it own particular local area from the amendment. The same principle as with for example right to vote with no voting place in N (for sufficiently large N) miles radius.
- shams93 8y ago
  Yeah ultimately you're being stripped of your state given rights by a locality run by cronies where it takes millions jus to win a seat on the local board of supervisors. Even though we do have ballot initiatives, a non-democratic, corrupt local process can ultimately strip you basically of all your rights. This also impacts criminalizing poverty by local governments where basically being low income and being there is a crime.
  - repsilat 8y ago
    > stripped of your state given rights That seems like a strong way to put it... How about "stripped of opportunities not taken away by the state"? California didn't give anyone a "right" to buy/use weed, they just said they wouldn't stop you. Notably, it's still illegal at the federal level...

bobthepanda 8y ago

I mean, is that not similar to how liquor and bar licensing works? A dispensary is not all that different from the other vices.

datavirtue 8y ago
With that attitude the black market will continue to dominate. And, no, it is not how that works. I can walk into any number of grocery stores in any state and buy a cart load of alcohol and people will smile and snicker when they see me do it.

iseeyoubydesign 8y ago

that really doesnt make sense ... In California people will drive for pot if they want it. Its a very mobile state. This local sales problem would not impact sales nearly as much as you think. But I ask , have any numbers?

LeoPanthera 8y ago

The town I live in in the bay area (south) pre-emptively passed an ordinance re-banning pot before it was even made legal. They didn't take a vote, they just did it.

coldtea 8y ago

>It all comes down to local control of licensing. To even operate a 100% mobile business, you have to be licensed out of a specific city Why would it take the ability to have a "100% mobile business" to make it a booming market?

Sniffnoy 8y ago
I think the grandparent comment just switched some words around. I think it's meant to be read as "To operate even a 100% mobile business...". I.e., these restrictions apply even if your business is 100% mobile.