There is more to it than just safe access. It is how we go about delivering the product from producer to consumer. We could do things the free market way. Sounds good doesn't it? Free market...has a ring of fairness...level playing field...may the best succeed. I get it. However in this case the best would not be allowed in. The bureaucrats that are beginning to grab at control are the least qualified at making these decisions. UH-OH, the level playing field that "free market" implies just became very uneven. It is not just a case of money to play, but who you know. I suppose that works just fine for roads and bridges. Heavy construction requires a sizable amount of capital. Most businesses require some major commitment of capital. This one does not. Not only can one individual produce a finished, ready for consumption, fresh product...if you ask nicely, I imagine they would prepack it. All of this with FEDERAL INSPECTION. Not only could individuals do it, they are the best choice. From the producer, to the retailer and direct to the consumer. Fresh is better. Properly grown, harvested, trimed, dried, cured, inspected and ready for sale. The profit, which is astronomical in terms of profit margin, is divided among the grower-who grew it; the govt-who inspected and auctioned it; and the retailer-who provides the store front and knowledgable employees. No waste, no delays, when ready, straight to market.

  And for everybody that thinks I have taken a socialist perspective...I ask you what could be more fair than saying, you can grow twenty kilos, you get 500 square feet purpose built to do it in, all of the rooms are the same. Have at it. If someone in a high buck area figures out that the glitterati patrons are willing to pay $50 a gram...the grower should get a fair cut, the tax angle is that $50 weed generates sales, food and beverage tax. I think the retailer should be allowed a standard mark-up. If the retailer pays $4 for the gram then a $4 mark-up would be max, plus the $2 excise tax. No mark-up on tax, lets keep this simple. But if the retailer can get $50 then the grower should share in that. Up to a point, the retailer of such high end stuff has high end expenses that others would not. As long as there is an element of society that wants to display their wealth so lavishly, we should accomodate them. To keep it fair and transparant, lets say if the retailer pays up to $10 he can mark it up buck for buck. If they pay $11-20 then the mark-up could be 150%, anything over $20 and there is no limit. There are no limits as to how much someone is allowed to pay.There aren't many fools ready to pay $50 a gram but for everyone that there is, let there be a grower and retailer willing to take it.

  If you look closely at the model and specificly the cash flow, you see that the profit is legislated in. It creates a an environment where success is rewarded. The better you are, the more you make. Up to a point. If success becomes a matter of who brings the most money to the table then the people lose these jobs, and we lose an artisan model that would provide us with the best quality at the fairest price. If we keep the big producers out then the profit will be divided among the most people. I guess you could say it rewards the best producers among the proletariat.  

I will have a merchant a/c soon and will be offering my book at $10. I will also be posting essays, news, and more. Please feel free to leave suggestions in the blog (Reefer Madness). In November of 2012 both presidential candidates should have to answer the question "Do you support The Plan?" or suffer the consequences of more than 160 million citizens that do support The Plan. Winning is a matter of votes not argument.