You must log in or register to comment.

1234nameuser t1_j3qorvp wrote

Highly regulated industries with high barriers to entry require LOTS of capital able to withstand short term losses.

This was never intended or designed to be a socially equitable mom & pop industry.


jaredsparks t1_j3r1nkx wrote

It was intended to be socially equitable, but in the long run it likely won't be due to the massive amount of money needed to fund a grow or dispensery operation.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j3wjocm wrote

Why not some of each?


jaredsparks t1_j3ydaue wrote

This is the problem. The social equity applicants are required to own 51% or more of the grow or dispensary operation. But social equity applicants are by definition low income. To build a proper grow or dispensary, you need at least a few million dollars, and nobody is going to invest several million dollars into an operation where they don't have control over what happens. No one is going to invest 3 million dollars into an operation where they only own 49% or less of the business.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j40l0xo wrote

>No one is going to invest 3 million dollars into an operation where they only own 49% or less of the business.

They already happened. People did invest.


jaredsparks t1_j413hob wrote

Yes but it's a huge hindrance. Note: I'm involved in the industry.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j417h56 wrote

Who* was hindered?


jaredsparks t1_j41833y wrote

The average person does not want to invest a few million dollars into an operation unless they have control over that money. If they only own 49% or less of the company, they have no control over the money. The majority shareholder of the LLC would have control and that's a problem.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j41jgq1 wrote

Hmmm, no shortage of investors though. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about.


jaredsparks t1_j41t6h7 wrote

OK Mr. Expert. Whatev.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j41vntd wrote

Oh no, you're right. I'm sorry. The license fees were too high, nobody could find any investors and it was so bad that nobody even submitted an application.


jaredsparks t1_j41w6gq wrote

You're missing the point. I never said that.


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j422wcj wrote

Well lay it out for me.

You would have done it differently?

Would it have passed into law?


Kodiak01 t1_j3xrj5a wrote

America was always intended to be the land of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.


DarkLamont t1_j3r66vq wrote

People realize what was legalized is horrible, the lowest quality standard of weed in existence, black market rises again with less penalties, win win.


maybe_little_pinch t1_j3se7a4 wrote

We will be where every other legal state was five years out. More growers, more dispensaries, higher limits, more product availability, and more stable pricing.

It’s not like we don’t have plenty of examples to look at.


gyokuro OP t1_j3qjjl0 wrote

The short answer is we will see less money, and less socially beneficial ownership, than the supporters of this state’s legalization envisioned in the spring of 2021, when the General Assembly passed the law that Gov. Ned Lamont signed with fanfare.


SneakySnake897 t1_j3qyq5k wrote

Why post this quote and not the following one? It literally follows with “and that’s fine” and then lists the benefits even if we make less than we thought and/or big buyers take over the industry.

It’s a win for CT 🤷🏾 Took too long and too much red tape, but I try not to let great get in the way of good.


gyokuro OP t1_j3qz5bd wrote

It's rationalizing the complete and total dominance of the CT market by corporate cannabis. But spin it however you need to.


SneakySnake897 t1_j3qziq9 wrote

But the article doesn’t say that. It says that there’s issues. I don’t see where you’re coming from, so I’ll wait and see.

Not spinning anything. Calm down.


gyokuro OP t1_j3qzspu wrote

You won't have to wait long. The same 4 incumbent players will fully control the market for at least another full calendar year (by design). Everyone can legally grow their own as of July 1st. After that, it's game over.


SneakySnake897 t1_j3r0igz wrote

Don’t think so. I lived through CA legalization and the majority of predictions on how that played out turned out to be untrue, so I’m not too worried. I’ll wait and see. Glad we finally got here though. Easy win for the state.


gyokuro OP t1_j3r0mc8 wrote

Yeah, and how is the CA legal market doing these days? Have you been paying attention?


SneakySnake897 t1_j3r0yi8 wrote

Great last I checked. Over 1b extra tax dollars in 2022 to spend on schools and infrastructure and voters just put in a bunch of new measures to grant more licenses. We don’t have the size to get there, but an extra 100+ million will certainly help!


gyokuro OP t1_j3r18zh wrote

I assume you don't talk to any small craft producers out there in California. Because you'd be hearing quite a different analysis.


SneakySnake897 t1_j3r2174 wrote

I mean, the tax revenue and licenses are just facts, not analysis. You seem like your primary objective is making sure small growers have a place in the market. My primary objectives are safety and tax dollars, followed by price, followed by seller.

🤷🏾 At least we are trying to help the smaller growers.


gyokuro OP t1_j3r28pr wrote

Are we, though? Have you really looked into it? The smaller growers here in Connecticut are not happy. They've mostly been excluded from access to the market, and those that did get a license had to partner up with MSOs or out-of-state investors.

Safety has been my lane for a while now.


Synapse82 t1_j3qq4u9 wrote

In 5 years we continue to have non-stop posts about weed in this sub. Edging out traffic for the first time in a decade.


Jason4hees t1_j3typfs wrote

5 years? Well Hopefully prices go down


AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j3wk6xz wrote

>Winfield is really excited about the social equity fund, which is now at $55 million from license fees and will expand hugely from cannabis taxes.

Me too.

Heard on the radio the tax raised $250k yesterday as of 5 pm.