Thread: Marijuana Stocks?

Originally Posted by Birchtree

Growing your own is so easy with good seed - why buy when most will end up home grown - there will be limited commerce in my opinion.

It's all according to what kind of product they are putting out in the store. If it's shake then yea I can see people growing it at the house. If they actually put good strains out at a competitive price then that's different story. Growing is complicated and takes time if your wanting quality. Inside the house takes chemicals and light schedules while outside you would have to worry about your neighbor topping your crop. To much hassle when you could just go down to the 7-11 and getting a carton of green stick icky.

HO,BRAH ! Hawaii could make some choke da kine, if can.

But, it's not going to happen anytime soon. We have passed laws for medicinal use, but we don't have any legal dispensaries. Sometimes we do things ass backwards over here.

We should have kept the pineapple and sugarcane exports, but instead, landowners sold all the good land to the evil 5 growing GMO crap.

Legal Maui Wowie? | West Hawaii Today

Originally Posted by tctang75

I'm out but good for you if you were "holding" today. Double-didge gains in HEMP, CBIS, MWIP, MJNA, CANV and TRTC. Just finding a little amusement in my not-very-productive, down Friday.

A couple of meaningless pennystocks doesn't equate to legality.

This "medical" marijuana is just testimony to how easily voters were hood-winked by bullsh!t; and consequently; how easily a few inexperienced POTUS's turned a blind eye to the health risk.

This will pass - meaning - the Federal government will step in and enforce the Controlled Substances Act - putting the industry back where it belongs - with criminals who peddle dope to the young and poor. Unfortunately - it will now take a few years - first, to elect a POTUS with an ounce of common sense, and second - to re-educate a duped (and somewhat doped-up) public.

The SEC isn't going to bother with any of this unless it becomes significant money. Which I doubt it will.

To anyone who voted for this crap (even though you don't have the right to vote on drugs or food) - I have only this to add:

Shame on you all.

Originally Posted by amoeba

This will pass - meaning - the Federal government will step in and enforce the Controlled Substances Act

want to bet?

a stoned proletarate does not care about inflation or some distant treasury getting raped.

you got to follow the money. you even already refer to it as an industry. that sounds legit. next the banks will lobby for a legal way to facilitate transactions. because there are lots of transactions happening, hell, somebody has to facilitate them.

well lets just legalize alcohol with all its medical and social side effects and put a tax on it so the gubmint can make a profit and cosign on its wide use. huhhhh we have already. and how is that working for society? all we have to do is look at the divorce, car accidents,lung cancer, battered woman, and all that comes with ALCOHOLISM. many senseless outcomes from that legal substance.

Originally Posted by amoeba

A couple of meaningless pennystocks doesn't equate to legality.

This "medical" marijuana is just testimony to how easily voters were hood-winked by bullsh!t; and consequently; how easily a few inexperienced POTUS's turned a blind eye to the health risk.

This will pass - meaning - the Federal government will step in and enforce the Controlled Substances Act - putting the industry back where it belongs - with criminals who peddle dope to the young and poor. Unfortunately - it will now take a few years - first, to elect a POTUS with an ounce of common sense, and second - to re-educate a duped (and somewhat doped-up) public.

The SEC isn't going to bother with any of this unless it becomes significant money. Which I doubt it will.

To anyone who voted for this crap (even though you don't have the right to vote on drugs or food) - I have only this to add:

Shame on you all.

Whatever effects alcohol has, or doesn't; it is a regulated, legal substance. The effects of alcohol, or tobacco, for that matter, do not create a standard for medical (or food, or other non-medical) benefit or abuse. The standard for drug, or food, approval is not "it isn't as bad as tobacco or alcohol, so it is OK."

Marijuana is not legal - it never has, nor will be. Rather, it has no food value. It is largely used by inhalation of a burned, unrefined, plant product (the active ingredient, synthesized, and purified - has been approved for limited, prescriptive use, only - such as Nabalone, for withdrawal treatment as a substitute to Methadone). Marijuana itself is not an approved drug, or food. It has been studied sufficiently to reveal a high potential for abuse, and significant health effects. As such, it is unlikely to achieve approval for further study as would be required for consideration of legal use in this Country. That consideration is a scientific matter solely up to the FDA.

Votes are meaningless, uninformed, and do not create legal status. Shame on you again.

That's all nice. Look at those stocks today! Woulda coulda shoulda!

Originally Posted by tctang75

That's all nice. Look at those stocks today! Woulda coulda shoulda!

It won't take much longer than a few business days to evaporate the worth of all such companies; when existing laws are enforced again; and it dawns on the ignorant that this is already an illegal, and unhealthy, venture.

I can't come up with a more risky, worthless investment idea, more doomed to failure than this one (at least one that is printable and not beyond perverse).

Hence, not recommended.

amoeba, you have some strong feelings of opposition to marijuana it seems. sure, it's easy to come up with a list of negatives about it. other people with strong feelings of support for marijuana can come up with a list of positives. what is it that causes you to feel so passionate about not letting other people be free to exercise their own free will and make an individual choice for themselves whether or not to use it? was there some catalyst in your life that resulted in your anti-positition on the subject? i don't think you have to worry about anyone forcing you to consume it. what is the rationalization for forcing them not to use it.

i am not for or against it myself. the substance itself is a non-issue for me. i do think the illegality of it leads to many negative consequences like black market dangers and public-funded incarceration, etc. but mainly i think we should regulate way less stuff across the board and let folks do their own thing. it is when we seek to codify what can or can't be done where most conflicts start. different people like to do different things, why not let them? why do we have to have so many rules and assign a stamp of approval or scarlet letter to everything? i do find it disturbing that the executive branch can selectively choose whether or not to enforce a valid law, any law, if they deem it unfair to a particular class of people they agree with or want to select non-prefered classes of people extra enforcement. but we have that situation with many laws like tax or illegal immigration for example. are you as passionate about those issues too? is it strictly a regulation/law enforcement thing? or is it the substance itself that bothers you so much?

Marijuana use is not an issue, it is a matter of science that has already been reflected by law. There is no freedom of will to break laws. There are costs, substantial costs, to everyone - of anyone using illegal drugs; these include health (lowered), productivity and contribution to society (lower), consequent effects on dependents of users (money spent on drugs won't go to dependents) - that will be paid for by us, associated crime (as in theft to buy drugs; violent crimes), health care costs (increased), environmental costs (to remove and rehabilitate illegal grows), immigration costs (illegal growers come from Mexico), and others. The individuals do not bear those costs. We all do.

What bothers me are people who think they have the right to abuse illegal substances as if there are no costs or effects to anyone but themselves. They couldn't be more wrong. Then I am bothered by the "let's vote on it" concept - when it isn't votable. I have no "say" and neither do you - the FDA alone does; and they base substance scheduling, along with numerous other actions such as study approvals, on scientific input - NOT politics. I'm bothered by an idiot current president who is ethically bankrupt when it comes to this; to the point that he has intentionally withdrawn enforcement of the law. Of course, this is a president who empathized more recently with a teenage thug who got shot while beating up the neighborhood watch - - - so the future of increasing drug use - - - whether it be marijuana or any of a number of other synthetic substances, is worrisome to say the least. This president sets the worst possible example - turning a blind eye to just one of the substances (marijuana); which as a result will have even greater negative effects on health and society.

There is nothing peculiar about marijuana, by the way; there are a number of other Schedule I substances which have similar health and abuse dangers - (opioids, opium derivatives, various natural or synthetic hallucinogens, depressants, and stimulants). There is certainly no merit to legalizing any of them. Marijuana has commensurately grater effects due to its mode of delivery (smoke inhalation), and increased use and availability (in some States). This should merit increased education and enforcement of existing law.

HOW MUCH DOES AN OUNCE OF MJ COST NOW? CAN YOU AFFORD THAT?