Prompted by “The Big Debate Over Big Marijuana”: http://www.hightimes.com/read/big-debate-over-big-marijuana
I refuse to drink Budweiser (Coors, etc.) beer for all intents and purposes. No offense against those brewers, and call me a beer snob (if you must, though I might sniff sadly a bit as a result), but in the rare instance that I allow for my personal consumption of beer, I greatly tend towards consuming the best products offered by independent brewers (e.g. Southern Tier, Rogue, etc.)
Sure Budweiser (and its kind) will likely logically leverage their solid brand recognition to offer one or more cheaply grown cannabis strains (some may consider unkind) priced for economically careful consumers dominating the public mainstream. However, the notion that ‘Cannabis Cup strains’ will become unavailable in a free market solution must include an assumption that an unfair competitive advantage will also exist. Such an advantage is typically (if not solely) possible only by serious government regulatory interference against free market performance (and the favoritism for the wealthiest private sector operators that tends to come with). In other words, to reasonably realize the expressed concern over “Big Marijuana”, our government would really have to deeply interfere (e.g. impose excessive costs in time/energy/money negating the ability for small “cannabusinesses” — i.e. businesses likely matching independent brewers in terms of producing high-quality products — to operate properly).
We cannot possibly be talking about a monopoly, duopoly, or any other unfair market advantage here. Cannabis can be conveniently grown (to the highest degree of quality) in all 50 states within our national union (even the aforementioned unkind bud would likely exist at the lower end of the high-quality/kind spectrum), so its availability will never be locked down by anti-competitive behavior against natural market forces (unlike a unique product/service protected against competition by a patent — i.e. government interference — and no, patenting cannabis is impossible, memory serving, because cannabis availability already impresses upon the public). Consumers should always do their homework before making any purchase (e.g. business credibility is key in purchasing decisions), because risk exists (and, to perhaps surprisingly inject a bit of morbidity for worst through best, death is imminent) regardless of any rule-of-law supposedly intended to eliminate that risk (e.g. the “best” jerks inherently refuse to allow any law to interfere with their selfish destruction).
I embrace “Big Marijuana” over the obscenely effective profits generated by Big Marijuana Prohibition (with its ample violence similar to that existing during Alcohol Prohibition — no violence in alcohol distribution these days after repealing Alcohol Prohibition btw — among other highly destructive facets of Certain Drug Prohibition remaining insufficiently reported to the public mainstream similarly btw).
Private and public sector abuse is always worthy of addressing, and so too is any abuse involving cannabis consumption. As an entertainer, I am working hard to find the best ways to wield information against abuse. Trying to earn political points against capitalism (which is what the “Big Marijuana” concern ironically apparently is all about) during the end of Cannabis Prohibition is part of that abuse. Capitalism is not perfect (no system is), and capitalism abuse is intolerable, but “capitalism use” (like cannabis use) is a guaranteed positive, logically speaking. In other words, demonizing capitalism (like demonizing cannabis) is wrong. Capitalism is the only known economic system tapping into the naturally competitive nature found all throughout nature (i.e. dominant forces subjectively existing to the farthest reaches of the known cosmos), so naturally provides incentive for people to press towards improvement (matching survival of the fittest consistently found in evolution). That does not necessitate finding ways to operate cheaply, especially in the case of satisfying the plentiful number of cannabis connoisseurs for whom the Cannabis Cup equals the best strain guide. Market demand for supreme cannabis quality is most certainly present, so only government interference via supremely powerfully enforced law concluding that only one large business can lawfully supply cannabis (so there is essentially no incentive to operate in any way but as cheaply as possible) possibly supports the “Big Marijuana” scare (to clarify the aforementioned irony) — even such interference would simply continue sustaining the black market for high-quality cannabis found prevalent these days.
As proven by the existence of brilliant indie brewers, I do not predict such government interference is coming regarding cannabis. People caring righteously passionately about cannabis will always be around to professionally spread their wonderful “cannabinfluence” for the benefit of helping society optimize perception alteration for better survival and “thrival”.
Leave a Reply