"policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit."
Agreed. That's my sole point. All the rest is commentary, not directed at you personally but at whatever might be murkying up the process of disconnecting the cables, overturning the tables, and craft…
"policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit."
Agreed. That's my sole point. All the rest is commentary, not directed at you personally but at whatever might be murkying up the process of disconnecting the cables, overturning the tables, and crafting better answers. As a reply to your posts, some of my observations are arguably a bit scattershot. But I'm weary of the issue of the Drug War being sidelined and subordinated as a handy axe-grinding tactic for other, more sweeping political visions and agendas, whether ideological, inchoate, or partisan cosplay.
Something has to be done, on this specific issue. Particularly because the improvement is doable. There are so many issues that defy a ready solution, and require protracted effort. But reforming a disastrous legal code is not one of them.
The Drug War needs to end- and in order to do that, we need a coherent replacement. It isn't as simple as "legalize everything", or any of the other bumper-sticker slogans. Without outlining the specifics of reform with a well-detailed proposal, bashing the Drug War will merely continue to be some empty rhetorical trope, even as it continues on unhindered. Working, as it does, as the dry rot of public policy efforts, and one of the chief motivators of social corrosion and political alienation in this country.
Simply in terms of cannabis law reform, I don't think that drug law reform and regulation should be left in the hands of Big Cannabis. I look at the regulation requirements for growers in legal states, and some of them have "regulatory capture" written all over them. It's interesting that the official regs promoted by the venture capital corporate Big Cannabis Industry is insisting on a level of purity and ingredient profiling that exceeds practically any other agricultural commodity. (And for crying out loud, imagine if similar requirements were to be placed on the tobacco cigar industry.) Those stringent requirements can most easily (and profitably) be fulfilled only by indoor warehouse growing operations. That's ridiculous. Cannabis had very little problem with fungal or insect pest problems- and no requirement for pesticides or herbicides- until it got cultivated in large plots by commercial profiteers, particularly indoors. The electrical power used by indoor operations is an enormous waste of energy, often using carbon-based power. LED lighting only lessens the energy problem somewhat. Nothing beats sunlight.
Cannabis wants to be grown outdoors in optimal microclimates. Its quality is improved by a terroir that allows for a full expression of entourage effects in conjunction with a proper (moderate potency) THC/CBD balance. It wants to get a light dusting of pollen every once in a while, instead of being grown in an ag factory as all-female clones from clones of clones in the name of "product uniformity" and Super THC. Maximum THC content and a friendly, productive, social cannabis high are two entirely different priorities.
The chief advantages of the regulations that favor indoor grows don't accrue to buyers. They accrue to the big investors, who are able to suppress competition by crowding out the cottage industry garden plots of small outdoor cultivators.
Indoor grows are also encouraged by the current status of Federal illegality, because every legal state has to have its in-house source. Massachusetts can't legally import pot from Mendocino.
100% agreed. i think you’re talking about two different sort of… rhetorical priorities. one is related to persuasion and education: most people are busy and not interested in policy specifics, but what they are interested in is propping up criminal networks and generational drug abuse with alcoholism that they have seen and experienced; ditto nicotine. a dark joke between my mom and i is that we have no idea what cancers or diseases “run in our family” because cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema have killed literally every single relative. so i think there’s a lot to work with there so far as, we have age requirements for purchase for a reason, we have regulations, but there are safer drugs that could be used in small quantities for relief, escapism, and as a “social lubricant”. that’s a grassroots thing, that has to happen in communities, and that’s part of the long game. the other thing you’re talking about is the regulatory framework for integration of marijuana and beginning to shift that conversation through federal legislation. i think it’s important to keep in mind with that that like…big weed is a product of deregulated capitalism, and it will remain dominant until more structural campaign finance and lobbying and regulatory issues are addressed and perused. so i see that as pretty much a long game effort too. i think that’s basically what you’re saying, and i agree with the points you’ve made, esp the fucking ridiculous interstate commerce issues this has brought up and the distinction between highest THC levels and good product. drives me crazy the direction VCs took legal weed in so goddamn fast 🫠
"policy should not carve out space for bad actors and criminal organizations to then exploit their communities and connections for profit."
Agreed. That's my sole point. All the rest is commentary, not directed at you personally but at whatever might be murkying up the process of disconnecting the cables, overturning the tables, and crafting better answers. As a reply to your posts, some of my observations are arguably a bit scattershot. But I'm weary of the issue of the Drug War being sidelined and subordinated as a handy axe-grinding tactic for other, more sweeping political visions and agendas, whether ideological, inchoate, or partisan cosplay.
Something has to be done, on this specific issue. Particularly because the improvement is doable. There are so many issues that defy a ready solution, and require protracted effort. But reforming a disastrous legal code is not one of them.
The Drug War needs to end- and in order to do that, we need a coherent replacement. It isn't as simple as "legalize everything", or any of the other bumper-sticker slogans. Without outlining the specifics of reform with a well-detailed proposal, bashing the Drug War will merely continue to be some empty rhetorical trope, even as it continues on unhindered. Working, as it does, as the dry rot of public policy efforts, and one of the chief motivators of social corrosion and political alienation in this country.
Simply in terms of cannabis law reform, I don't think that drug law reform and regulation should be left in the hands of Big Cannabis. I look at the regulation requirements for growers in legal states, and some of them have "regulatory capture" written all over them. It's interesting that the official regs promoted by the venture capital corporate Big Cannabis Industry is insisting on a level of purity and ingredient profiling that exceeds practically any other agricultural commodity. (And for crying out loud, imagine if similar requirements were to be placed on the tobacco cigar industry.) Those stringent requirements can most easily (and profitably) be fulfilled only by indoor warehouse growing operations. That's ridiculous. Cannabis had very little problem with fungal or insect pest problems- and no requirement for pesticides or herbicides- until it got cultivated in large plots by commercial profiteers, particularly indoors. The electrical power used by indoor operations is an enormous waste of energy, often using carbon-based power. LED lighting only lessens the energy problem somewhat. Nothing beats sunlight.
Cannabis wants to be grown outdoors in optimal microclimates. Its quality is improved by a terroir that allows for a full expression of entourage effects in conjunction with a proper (moderate potency) THC/CBD balance. It wants to get a light dusting of pollen every once in a while, instead of being grown in an ag factory as all-female clones from clones of clones in the name of "product uniformity" and Super THC. Maximum THC content and a friendly, productive, social cannabis high are two entirely different priorities.
The chief advantages of the regulations that favor indoor grows don't accrue to buyers. They accrue to the big investors, who are able to suppress competition by crowding out the cottage industry garden plots of small outdoor cultivators.
Indoor grows are also encouraged by the current status of Federal illegality, because every legal state has to have its in-house source. Massachusetts can't legally import pot from Mendocino.
100% agreed. i think you’re talking about two different sort of… rhetorical priorities. one is related to persuasion and education: most people are busy and not interested in policy specifics, but what they are interested in is propping up criminal networks and generational drug abuse with alcoholism that they have seen and experienced; ditto nicotine. a dark joke between my mom and i is that we have no idea what cancers or diseases “run in our family” because cirrhosis of the liver and emphysema have killed literally every single relative. so i think there’s a lot to work with there so far as, we have age requirements for purchase for a reason, we have regulations, but there are safer drugs that could be used in small quantities for relief, escapism, and as a “social lubricant”. that’s a grassroots thing, that has to happen in communities, and that’s part of the long game. the other thing you’re talking about is the regulatory framework for integration of marijuana and beginning to shift that conversation through federal legislation. i think it’s important to keep in mind with that that like…big weed is a product of deregulated capitalism, and it will remain dominant until more structural campaign finance and lobbying and regulatory issues are addressed and perused. so i see that as pretty much a long game effort too. i think that’s basically what you’re saying, and i agree with the points you’ve made, esp the fucking ridiculous interstate commerce issues this has brought up and the distinction between highest THC levels and good product. drives me crazy the direction VCs took legal weed in so goddamn fast 🫠