Submitted by Character_Mall_1966 t3_yywwp1 in nyc
Comments
Character_Mall_1966 OP t1_iwwvoor wrote
That would make sense if they truly tried to get a NY license.
They created the business a week after the application window opened. They don’t run a cannabis business in any of the states in question. Their lawyer is a lawsuit troll who also sued CA over COVID tracing laws.
Use the context clues.
JaredSeth t1_iwwuh5i wrote
Peculiar that they don't seem to operate in Michigan or California under either of the names they filed suit with in New York and Sacramento. How the hell couldn't they get approved to run a dispensary in Michigan? I thought they gave those licenses away to anybody.
cogginsmatt t1_iwxb9jx wrote
Yeah I’m a Michigan transplant and can confirm there is quite literally a dispensary on every block in most Michigan municipalities
nysrpatakemyenergy2 t1_ix04566 wrote
So a Michigan businessperson looking to open up a dispo might not chose Michigan, but rather some other place with low market saturation?
cheeseburgercats t1_iwzdtsw wrote
The dormant commerce clause is federal though like “interstate” cannabis trade is federally illegal so at the very least not protected by this clause
intotheunknownn t1_iwzj7au wrote
That’s definitely an argument to be made and the one I would make. But the commerce clause has been historically used in a very broad manner. Courts have basically said that any effect on persons, instrumentality, or products all fall under the clause. So basically if you get fertilizer from Michigan to plant in then you are now technically participating in interstate commerce even if the final product will stay local. While more modern courts have started to narrow this application, the history gives way to broad enactment by congress.
I’m also no expert, but I am a second year law student who interns at a licensing firm in the city so I have a little exposure here.
___BobaFett___ t1_iwzjk0k wrote
I wouldn’t be too sure about the finality of that statement, I’m not too sure this is settled law. See a recent case out of the 1st Circuit, Northeast Patients Group v. United Cannabis Patients and Caregivers of Maine. Given the timing, this was probably the catalyst for the NY case.
sirzoop t1_iwxkjsq wrote
So? Let them open the stores and have his lawsuit proceed and if he wins give the man a license and allow out of staters to open in the future
intotheunknownn t1_iwy39v8 wrote
It’s stopped until the court makes a ruling because if it’s found unconstitutional then NY will have to rewrite how the licensing is distributed so that it isn’t “unfair” to out-of-staters. If they proceed with the way it is before the court ruling then they would have to take them away if the court rules it’s unconstitutional later, which would create a lot of other problems.
Character_Mall_1966 OP t1_iwws1x5 wrote
The lawyer who brought cookies up then posted an apology video definitely had cookies goons standing a few feet away while he recorded that
Dont_mute_me_bro t1_iwyh7uc wrote
First they were slow to legalize. Then they were slow to license. Then they made a questionable program that doesn't give equal opportunity to get into the industry in the name of equal opportunity. Now there's a grey market and court squabbles. Is it any wonder people are leery of government being the solution?
BiblioPhil t1_iwywsra wrote
That would make sense if they were trying to roll out state-owned pot shops, but they aren't.
People in NYC like businesses to be regulated for good reason. That's not gonna change.
yoshimipinkrobot t1_iwzik5z wrote
Pretending like New York is blazing the trail and doing anything responsibly rather than creating grift opportunities
darklost t1_iwz5pwh wrote
What's the reason, other than getting their pockets lined by corporate cannabis? I'll wait.
cguess t1_iwzh8gq wrote
Quality control? Try buying edibles at the shops that have popped up, it’s all awful and wrongly advertised. Also, eventually the feds will legalize it and it’s better to write the rules and use them as examples than letting a bunch of congress people from Mississippi go to town on them.
darklost t1_iwzio9f wrote
Have you actually looked at the "rules" for one of these coveted and ephemeral licenses? It's a load of equity horseshit and has less than nothing to do with quality controls. It's cronyism, pure and simple, and will just serve to keep black market dealers operating when (and if) licensed shops ever open--get ready for $500 zips.
Silver-Hat175 t1_ixekr4u wrote
You are a virtue signalling obnoxious conservative who makes everything about government bad or other races bad. Thankfully no one in blue states gives a shit what you think.
Dont_mute_me_bro t1_ixysx18 wrote
Conservative? I belong to no party.
Who said anything about race here? Only you. If it's racist you should report me and have me muted. If not, tough shit. Cope.
I was born and raised in NYC (but in SW Bklyn with its GOP Congressman) where I still reside. Lifelong New Yorker.
TetraCubane t1_iwygvj6 wrote
This state is stupid thats why. There shouldn’t be a need for an entire bureaucracy to exist for this industry.
Once it was legalized they should have just stepped out and let whoever storm in and start building dispensaries and/or allow sales out of other existing businesses without requiring an actual license to sell.
SillyDig1520 t1_iwz1dhg wrote
But how would they steal make money if they did that?
brownredgreen t1_ix07qv5 wrote
Or what would they do to a business that sold to a 14 year old?
Proponents of legalization highlight that for HS kids getting weed was often easier than getting booze, because, no sellers worried about losing their license for an underage sale.
brownredgreen t1_ix07lx0 wrote
JFC do you also feel that way about alcohol?
TetraCubane t1_ix145oo wrote
No because alcohol is actually dangerous.
I see people in the hospital all the time for alcohol poisoning, withdrawal, liver disease.
Never seen weed poisoning.
brownredgreen t1_ix3d2st wrote
Do you know what an anecdote is?
Marijuana, is not without its risks. Thinking otherwise is ignorance.
Acute intoxication is not the only risk a drug can pose.
PatrickMaloney1 t1_iwyv8fm wrote
After reading this article and another NYTimes article about this a few weeks ago I do think it sounds like this guy is engaging in some kind of litigation lotto in order to gain a foothold in the market, but good faith or not, the case raises a legitimate question about our cannabis licensing. If the intended goal of New York State’s licensing program is a restorative justice measure for individuals and families impacted by the war on drugs, why limit the scope to just NY? What purpose does that serve?
I say this every time this topic comes up but as someone who actually still naively believes in restorative justice, you can’t rely on capitalism to provide it.
Character_Mall_1966 OP t1_iwyws7k wrote
The purpose has been expressed by OCM a few times
NY state punished weed at higher rate than any place in the world.
This process is open to people from anywhere as long as they were prosecuted by NY state. A New Yorker with a fed charge or a Ny resident with an nj charge can’t apply.
A man from atlanta who go popped in NY can apply. As well as any family members I believe.
That is a huge pool of people. Michigan and cali are way better shots at getting licensed if that was the real goal.
If you qualify for that basic requirement there’s still huge barriers of running a stable business for years. It’s a specific window this person knew they didn’t qualify for.
LoneStarTallBoi t1_iwzjivz wrote
Rules that we've all gotten so dumb that this is being seen as a problem of overregulation and not a frivolous lawsuit by a copyright troll.
Cascando-5273 t1_iwy5s9m wrote
Because corporate cannabis. Because capital investment. Because capitalism.
ejpusa t1_iwzj9t6 wrote
I just go up the block. The guy has AWESOME Kali pre-rolls. $10. The state blew it. A smoke shop on every corner is a bit crazy.
But as above, NYS is very conservative. Believe it or not. They just totally screwed this up. They just don’t want legal cannabis. It’s pretty obvious.
Suffolk County just banned all sales. That’s Zeldin land. So the local Native Americans will make a killing. Much Awesomeness!
[deleted] t1_iwzq7tz wrote
[removed]
MarketMan123 t1_ix0alrj wrote
Why is this a valid argument in NY state, but not one that's come up in any other state that prioritized certain people who lived in the state over others when it came to the first licenses?
Character_Mall_1966 OP t1_ix3b4es wrote
It’s come up in almost every state. Active cases in Michigan Maine and CA. Every state with a social equity program is open to this kind of litigation. Ny is just biggest story bc it’s a huge market and the timing of this case will impact day 1 of rec sales.
GroundbreakingCook68 t1_ix0dieg wrote
Mid west , run nyc
[deleted] t1_ix1teq6 wrote
[removed]
mall_goth420 t1_iwy6ipc wrote
What an asshole
Shawn_NYC t1_iwwxv31 wrote
This is such a disaster. I think Zeldin would have won if he just pledged to delete this failed regulation and simply legalize cannabis.
The whole thing is just a massive example of how the Cuomo machine was completely broken and failing new yorkers.
nychuman t1_iwx40eu wrote
The use and possession of cannabis is already legal…
The issue is being able to buy it recreationally from licensed dispensaries.
TetraCubane t1_iwygzqu wrote
Requiring licenses is the problem. No need to create more bureaucracy.
If people want to grow at home or in a building or farm and then sell it wholesale or sell it on street corners without licenses, they should be allowed to.
nychuman t1_iwz923t wrote
That’s a terrible idea.
You want to be able to control the quality to a certain standard and collect taxes from sales. That was the whole god damned point of legalizing the stuff…
TetraCubane t1_iwz9bui wrote
No, the whole of legalizing was so people can grow, sell, possess, use the stuff without going to prison. I don’t care if the state makes money.
nychuman t1_iwz9jm9 wrote
Uh, the plant was already decriminalized and prison time was a thing of the past for a long time.
Legalization is obviously a better step in that regard, but as far as the political reasoning for actually passing the law in NY, quality control and taxation were at the top of the list.
TetraCubane t1_iwzdpvp wrote
You can have quality control without a ridiculous licensing division.
If it was simple registration, where you sign up, an inspector comes by before you open and you have to send samples in, etc fine. The problem is the ridiculous amounts of money they want. It shouldn't cost more than $50 to get a license to grow, sell, deliver, etc.
brownredgreen t1_ix08304 wrote
It is a good idea to attempt to prohibit the sale of drugs to children.
Liquor licenses can be revoked.
Marijuana licenses should operate the same way.
intotheunknownn t1_iwwsg7m wrote
It pretty clearly says it in the article. They are claiming the way the license statute is written is discriminatory against out-of-staters and effects interstate commerce which is a violation of the dormant commerce clause under the constitution.
Why is the particular Michigan resident making the claim? Well probably because they wanted to get a license and open a dispensary, didn’t get it, and now are trying to fight back in court to try again.