[rustledust]

I must admit to having a long standing distrust of rich "hippys", especially ones that have excelled in the business world and doubly so when they are so much part of the establishment they have been knighted, but i will put my prejudice to one side for a moment.

My problem would be this. Sold pre-rolled and pre-packed means now you can go and buy it from the corner shop, sounds good but what weed is in them? Will there be a limit on THC? Will we end up with very little choise as to what varities and strenghts we are allowed to buy? Could this end up with some strains being lost? What with the tax e.t.c could the price end up being very high after all the whole point of business is to make as much profit as you can? I know these are all things that could be worked out but my real issue is that if pre-packet joint could be bought then by not doing so and growing your own it could be classed as tax evasion and I got a feeling the powers that be, what with the extra tax income they would now be getting, may well decide to really crack down on home grows as it would now be costing them money. Would there be any need to allow the sale of seeds for instance if you could buy the end product, it would only take one Bill to ban seed sales and impose massive penalties for anyone who was found in possession of them.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Zeah, on 17 March 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Richard Branson won't be needing to drum up anymore business for himself tho he'll know he has made it

Did he really need to drum any more business up when he made his first 100k? Or his first Million? Or Billion?

It isn't money that motivates, it's control.

Control brings power.

Power is the motivation.

[Lake Palmer]

L, on 17 March 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Zeah, on 17 March 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

Richard Branson won't be needing to drum up anymore business for himself tho he'll know he has made it

Did he really need to drum any more business up when he made his first 100k? Or his first Million? Or Billion?

It isn't money that motivates, it's control.

Control brings power.

Power is the motivation.

I don't believe that is the case in all instances where somebody gets money and power. Again, I point to Warren Buffett and perhaps to a lesser degree Bill Gates and Bill Joy from Sun Microsystems. Its widely documented what Buffett does with some of his cash and I do not think its for power. Bill Joy has spent many years and lots of his own money trying to get people to understand the potential dangers of nanotechnology to the human race, I don't believe he has done this for power and/or money.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Lake Palmer, on 17 March 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Its widely documented what Buffett does with some of his cash and I do not think its for power.

Warren Buffet said:

There's nothing material I want very much

The luxury of the man who has everything.

He has the POWER to do what he likes with his money.

His money gives him power, he readily admits that.

He regularly appears in lists of the top x number most powerful/influential people in the world; I really can't imagine he doesn't have any say in US policy.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at?

This post has been edited by L'Emmerdeur: 17 March 2012 - 10:57 AM

[Lake Palmer]

L, on 17 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at?

What I am trying to get at is that just because somebody has money and power, it doesn't mean that everything they do thereafter has anything to do with gaining more money and power, which is what I thought you suggested in this post, I might have misunderstood so apologies if I have.

L, on 17 March 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Did he really need to drum any more business up when he made his first 100k? Or his first Million? Or Billion?

It isn't money that motivates, it's control.

Control brings power.

Power is the motivation.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I haven't seen Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates or Richard Branson ever do anything that wasn't aimed at consolidating their power base.

I obviously just have less faith in the nature of certain types of people than you do.

Anyhoo, all massively off-topic and the rugby's starting soon...

[Lake Palmer]

L, on 17 March 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I haven't seen Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates or Richard Branson ever do anything that wasn't aimed at consolidating their power base.

I obviously just have less faith in the nature of certain types of people than you do.

Anyhoo, all massively off-topic and the rugby's starting soon...

Buffett has given away about £7 billions worth of shares and cash to various charities. I really do not believe he did it for anything other than the right reasons. Read a bit about Buffett dude, he's actually not that bad.

[MekongBlues]

L, on 17 March 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

He regularly appears in lists of the top x number most powerful/influential people in the world; I really can't imagine he doesn't have any say in US policy.

Exactly, so having such an influential person speaking out in favour of legalisation isn't a positive thing?

I think the stance taken by many on this thread is highly cynical verging on the paranoid. Do you honestly believe that he's speaking out in favour on the unlikely off chance that he might, at some unspecified point in the future, be able to make a couple of quid out of it? He wouldn't be a billionaire businessman in the first place with hiding-to-nothing business ideas like that.

Even if he succesfully influenced decriminalisation/legalisation there is no guarantee that the government wouldn't hold a complete monopoly on cannabis and distribute it through licensed pharmacies, not earning Branson a bean.

As far as money making schemes go it'd be an extremely risky tactic. If I was a billionaire succesful businessman theres no way I'd divert any of my valuable time and effort into something so uncertain, there must be a million other business opportunities he could invest in that would provide a much more secure ROI.

His high profile means he gets listened to and media attention. He could force the issue more than a million stoned punters posting on the internet ever will. Ridiculous arguments all based on hypothetical 'what ifs...?' IMO.

FFS-If even growers and smokers shoot down everyone trying to push for change to drug policy nothing will ever change. And, if you keep doing so to everyone sticking their neck out you have no right to complain when your own door gets kicked off IMHO. What exactly are you naysayers doing to bring about a change in your own circumstances?

This post has been edited by MekongBlues: 17 March 2012 - 11:48 AM

[sunshine band]

Lake P - did you see Branson's pathetic whining about wanting to take the national lottery? Apart from wanting the silly name and logo on everything from coca cola to coffins, it was all such bullshit when he played the good causes card. He kept saying "we will not take a penny from this" - and what he actually meant was corporate profits, of course he meant paying tens of thousands of his people money for administering the scheme, benefitting from advertising and other commercial interests and he had the cheek to present this as something altruistic. Do you really think that this person who is clearly a megalomaniac can see anything other than opportunity across the board for this, not only for business but also image? Yes, he may well be 'onside', but I think the real problem is this, whilst people have made money out of prohibition, there are loads of others like Reynolds, possibly Nutt and Branson wanting to control the tap of regulation to find markets. Now whilst there is nothing wrong with making a few quid in capitalism, what there is is a massive conflict of interest looming between those advocate for change and their personal interests. Regulation is being touted as sensible and rightly so, but if the terms of that are being defined by persons with a vested interest in keeping commercial monopolies viable, then we are being sold out. Of course this is what is so objectionable about Reynolds, he took the canna-libertarian premise of the LCA and covertly turned it into something which actively opposes real liberty to trade off commecial advantage, with the police as protection for the racketeers, all sold as 'the cause' on the basis of sensible pragamtic change - as for any other views obviously from trolls, hippies and dreamers, they were told to fuck off, and now we know why. If Branson is prepared to say hands off ALL drug users unless they cause harm, then I will be delighted with his efforts. Right now I don't think he knows his stuff and a bet there are Virgin Sensimilla doodles on his writing pad.

[L'Emmerdeur]

MekongBlues, on 17 March 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Exactly, so having such an influential person speaking out in favour of legalisation isn't a positive thing?

Warren Buffet was the subject of that particular thread of converstaion not Richard Branson.

I don't think there is any moral way to accumulate capital, and I don't like the people who set about doing so. I dislike the people who continue doing so when they already have enough for a Billion lifetimes even more. There is no other reason to do so, than the desire to impose your will upon the world. I just don't like people like that.

I also don't think attempting to change laws in order to profit is particularly moral either.

I suppose it depends on which school of ethics you follow as to how you view the situation.

As for "verging on the paranoid", don't be so fucking stupid.

E2a - Just a quick one before I fuck off to watch rugby in the sun for the PM...

When you say the government would hold monopolies on the dispensaries, do you mean David Cameron would work behind the counter?

Governments give contracts out to companies to do things.

They do pretty much fuck all themselves.

This post has been edited by L'Emmerdeur: 17 March 2012 - 11:48 AM

[MekongBlues]

L, on 17 March 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Warren Buffet was the subject of that particular thread of converstaion not Richard Branson.

I don't think there is any moral way to accumulate capital, and I don't like the people who set about doing so. I dislike the people who continue doing so when they already have enough for a Billion lifetimes even more. There is no other reason to do so, than the desire to impose your will upon the world. I just don't like people like that.

I also don't think attempting to change laws in order to profit is particularly moral either.

I suppose it depends on which school of ethics you follow as to how you view the situation.

As for "verging on the paranoid", don't be so fucking stupid.

E2a - Just a quick one before I fuck off to watch rugby in the sun for the PM...

When you say the government would hold monopolies on the dispensaries, do you mean David Cameron would work behind the counter?

Governments give contracts out to companies to do things.

They do pretty much fuck all themselves.

Where exactly do ethics come into it? I refute your basic statement that this is to do with business, therefore your ethical, anti corpate argument is redundant, IMO of course. Is the current situation of people being arrested and jailed more ethical than a legalised and controlled market in your opinion?

As for 'don't be so fucking stupid', where's your evidence that Branson is motivated by anything more than a genuine belief that cannabis should be legalised? If you have none, it's nothing more than your own hysterical imaginings and baseless speculation so I'd rebutt you with the same: Don't be so fucking stupid.

When I say government might have a monopoly I mean just that: as a proviso to legalisation it's highly likely any UK government would want a degree of control over supply. There is no way on earth something which has been illegal for decades would be allowed to all of a sudden become an unregulated free-for-all.

Yes, governments tender to private companies for some things, and manage others through governmental departments. At this stage there is no way of telling how they may decide to control cannabis if legalised as the proposal ain't even on the table, so there would be no way a businessman looking at all the potential variables would consider there to be any more than the slimmest of chances to make an earner at some far distant point.

It just doesn't make sense for Branson to be speaking out from a business POV, so I believe he genuinely believes in legalisation and is actually doing something to try and change things, what the fuck are you doing aside from criticising?

This post has been edited by MekongBlues: 17 March 2012 - 12:09 PM

[Lake Palmer]

Surely it doesn't matter whether someone like Branson benefits from cannabis legislation change? If people are allowed to grow their own without penalties and if people can buy what they want from a retail outlet then the jobs a good 'un isn't it?

Branson makes money out of wine but it doesn't stop people from making their own. I would love to be able to go and buy a selection of different herbs and decide which ones I want to grow or buy more of. I don't think commercial enterprise and people being allowed to grow their own are mutually exclusive are they?

[audioaddict]

All this is still up in the air for me, but people do seem to miss the point that cannabis is already highly commercialised and mostly being steered by business interests. The recent thread about fems and autos dominating the seed business springs to mind.

I can't help but think if the market opened up due to legalisation/decriminalisation then trends in cannabis would remain fairly similar, except it would be a more regulated market. Essentially meaning fems/autos/hyped bullshit would only get worse (as if that won't happen anyway), but the excess of competition in the market would probably force the quality of product up after a time. Seed vendors would find it harder to get away with selling any old shite billed as the next big thing.
Plus, people who genuinely care about the plant would be free to openly engage in larger breeding/preservation projects without the fear of being criminalised.

On the other hand I do see the ugly side of government/corporate involvement in it, ideally speaking I don't see why the government has the right to get involved and dictate what we can and can't do in our private lives... but the reality is they do, and we haven't the will to stop them.

Realistically it's legalisation/decrim or carry on as we are now.


Also, Branson clearly sees money in this, not as some whimsical possibility in the future, but as a real definite business plan. That's how people like him work, entrepreneurs and their like don't just come over all altruistic when they hit a certain figure in the Cayman Islands account, it's a lifestyle that they push hard at.
I think Branson sees the money being made in California and thinks "I'll have some of that!", which is why he wants to steer policy making decisions on it rather than leave the chinless wonders to decide how it goes down.

But, I do still think I'd welcome it as favourable to the possibility of me gaining a criminal record for a plant that I grow, still a compromise and not ideal, but better I think.

I hate the authoritarian bullshit we all have to suffer currently more than anything.





Edited to correct weird grammar!

This post has been edited by audioaddict: 17 March 2012 - 12:53 PM

[Hughie Green]

Did any of you watch the "war on drugs" debate?, Branson was fucking useless.

[tengreenfingers]

Who cares what his intents are?
I couldn't care less if he had a factory already set up for growing, harvesting, curing rolling/oiling/whatever-ing tons of the stuff and was pushing this to let him pull the trigger on his cannabis empire.

ANY way this prohibition nonsense can be stopped, I'm all for it.
If he gets into a position where he can set up Virgin Canna selling generic, not-very-good herb - there will really be nothing at all to stop you, me or anyone else setting up a boutique brand selling something much better. Cadbury's is a giant in chocolate, but that doesn't stop people setting up things like Chokolit, Green&Blacks or any number of small, boutique chocolatiers that are to be found all over the place.
Starbucks and Costa might dominate the coffee market, but there's still an abundance of small, independents where you can get a cracking mug of the stuff.

No matter what people think about accumulation of capital/money/wealth - Branson is far more publicly respectable and recognisable than ANY member of the legalisation movement. Pick your dream team of pro-legalisation advocates and ask whether or not your average mug on the street would know who any of them were or care what any of them thought.

On the other hand, almost everyone knows and recognises Branson. He's the absolute antithesis of the "drugs fuck you up, make you lazy and turn you into a benefits-scrounging burden on the taxpayer" nonsense that the country has been indoctrinated with for years.
Sure, politicians might be clamouring to get in front of a camera and admit to smoking a bit of puff when they were young... but nobody cares. They are politicians.

Here's a massively successful man who has stood up, been realistic about cannabis and is pushing for problem drug use to be treated as a public health issue and for the criminalisation of drug users to be stopped outright.

I've got to wonder about anyone who actually dislikes that. Do you really think a fringe political party or non-political pressure group is going to get the kind of exposure the legalisation effort needs without simply being labelled as a bunch of bloody stoners who just want to be able to get wasted anywhere they like... and probably get the kids hooked on crack while they are at it?

This post has been edited by tengreenfingers: 17 March 2012 - 02:01 PM