|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 08 2014 20:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 18:17 Simberto wrote:
The main thing that can be learned from this is that a system that is based on two parties whose interests are to oppose each other cooperating to get stuff done is not a system that gets stuff done.
On the other hand, a system where the president makes all the decisions on his own is called a dictatorship.
The reasonable solution is to have a system that can pass even if some of the people involved in lawmaking disagree. Like, for example, a system where you don't need a 60% majority to get something done. Or a system with more than two parties, so if your ruling coalition does not have a majority in one of the two houses, you can try to convince one of the other parties in there to help you by making some concessions, instead of having only one partner to negotiate with who has absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever because if nothing happens, he can try to make that look like it's your fault.
One of the major advantages of a multiparty system is also that making the other guy look bad is far less effective than making yourself look good. In a two party system, apparently a lot more effort is put into making the other guy look bad, so the voters think they have no choice but to vote for you because at least you are not as bad as the other guy. In a multiparty system, they might just vote for someone else entirely. Too be fair the whole 60% to pass anything was a technicality that has been abused to the max by the opposition party. There has never been a congress so obstinate in all of US history. Even by their own measure, they have failed on an epic scale...
The way things have gone with the laws Congress has passed over the last 15 years, all I can say is "be careful what you wish for".
|
Yes, but i don't quite see why you would even have that technicality in the first place, as it is obvious that it will be abused at some point. If you only have two parties, and you need 60% to do anything, at some point you are going to get a majority below 60% that can not do anything unless the other party allows it. This is obviously a bad system, unless you specifically want a government that is incapable of actually acting.
Just because for some reason people have not blocked things they were against before, even if those things wouldn't have a 60% majority, does not mean that the system wasn't already bad before. A good system works even if the opposition tries to block it. Otherwise you could just stop with the whole election business because it is utterly irrelevant who wins an election if all parties have to agree to get something done. Would save a shitload of money too, elections are expensive, and not only in pure monetary costs. If you allow your parties to take bribes from big companies (or "campaign contributions"), that also compromises their integrity a lot. But i guess that is a different topic.
|
On August 08 2014 21:09 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but i don't quite see why you would even have that technicality in the first place, as it is obvious that it will be abused at some point. If you only have two parties, and you need 60% to do anything, at some point you are going to get a majority below 60% that can not do anything unless the other party allows it. This is obviously a bad system, unless you specifically want a government that is incapable of actually acting.
Just because for some reason people have not blocked things they were against before, even if those things wouldn't have a 60% majority, does not mean that the system wasn't already bad before. A good system works even if the opposition tries to block it. Otherwise you could just stop with the whole election business because it is utterly irrelevant who wins an election if all parties have to agree to get something done. Would save a shitload of money too, elections are expensive, and not only in pure monetary costs. If you allow your parties to take bribes from big companies (or "campaign contributions"), that also compromises their integrity a lot. But i guess that is a different topic.
Difficulty in getting things done is a design feature of the system not an unintended consequence. Its also not a two party system by design. THAT part is the unintended part.
|
Well, there is a very good reason to believe that extending unemployment benefits to a maximum of 99 weeks in recent years held back the labor supply. Rather than taking a job, extended unemployment benefits made it easier for potential workers to lengthen their job searches, hold out for higher-wage positions, or just choose not to work.
However, supply-side theory would also suggest that as extended unemployment benefits expired at the end of last year—despite major handwringing from the president and Democratic leaders—workers would go back to work. And they did. Technically, this would be visible as an outward expansion of the supply-of-labor curve. Without the crutch of continued unemployment benefits, workers are willing to take jobs, even at a somewhat lower wage. They know that work is its own virtue.
Source
People forced to get to work after entitlements wear out or perfectly timed safety net extensions until the economy recovers? Pundits on both sides can frame it as left or right ideologies working.
|
On August 09 2014 07:59 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +Well, there is a very good reason to believe that extending unemployment benefits to a maximum of 99 weeks in recent years held back the labor supply. Rather than taking a job, extended unemployment benefits made it easier for potential workers to lengthen their job searches, hold out for higher-wage positions, or just choose not to work.
However, supply-side theory would also suggest that as extended unemployment benefits expired at the end of last year—despite major handwringing from the president and Democratic leaders—workers would go back to work. And they did. Technically, this would be visible as an outward expansion of the supply-of-labor curve. Without the crutch of continued unemployment benefits, workers are willing to take jobs, even at a somewhat lower wage. They know that work is its own virtue. SourcePeople forced to get to work after entitlements wear out or perfectly timed safety net extensions until the economy recovers? Pundits on both sides can frame it as left or right ideologies working.
I'm not seeing ANY correlation with faster job growth since the ending of long-term unemployment benefits... This year looks like the 2 before it.
|
Sen. Lamar Alexander easily dispatched rival Republican Joe Carr in the Tennessee primary Thursday, completing a clean sweep for this year's Senate incumbents who faced intraparty challengers claiming the Tea Party label.
Yet while they were winless, the hard-core conservatives intent on selecting a Senate more to their liking this year were far from utterly defeated. All of the challenged GOP incumbents reacted to the pressure by working to reconfirm their credentials with conservatives. This held true even for those whose credentials should have been least in doubt.
Having induced this embrace of their policies and principles, the GOP's most conservative wing can surely claim a kind of success. And that claim can be shared by the populists who provided the votes as well as by the more organized entities that furnished the funding.
Meaningful as this rightward shift has been for the party and the Senate, the insurgent elements would have preferred to actually knock off a few of their targets. That would have meant more reinforcements for Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas — the four freshmen who shouldered aside the candidates of the GOP establishment on their way to the Senate in 2010 and 2012.
At the start of the 2014 primary season, a group called the Senate Conservatives Fund, associated with the Heritage Foundation, set out to bolster and bankroll long shots against Republicans it considered insufficiently loyal to the cause. Also active on the fundraising front were groups such as Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks and The Madison Project.
At first, the movement seemed to have a decent stable of horses ready to run in states like Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas and Kentucky, Georgia and Arizona. But several of the early recruits proved distinctly disappointing. Others failed to generate competitive levels of donations. And in a few states, such as South Carolina, Tea Party votes were scattered among several challengers.
The anti-incumbent thrust was parried early in Kentucky, where Matt Bevin's once-promising bid against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell fizzled in May. In the end, the closest the intraparty upstarts came was in Mississippi, where six-term veteran Thad Cochran needed two rounds of voting to fend off former state legislator Chris McDaniel (who is still contesting the outcome).
There is also some consolation in Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who won the GOP nod for a vacant seat. Sasse was backed by Cruz and Sarah Palin even though many Tea Party people in Nebraska preferred another candidate.
Source
|
On August 08 2014 21:09 Simberto wrote:
Yes, but i don't quite see why you would even have that technicality in the first place, as it is obvious that it will be abused at some point. If you only have two parties, and you need 60% to do anything, at some point you are going to get a majority below 60% that can not do anything unless the other party allows it. This is obviously a bad system, unless you specifically want a government that is incapable of actually acting.
Just because for some reason people have not blocked things they were against before, even if those things wouldn't have a 60% majority, does not mean that the system wasn't already bad before. A good system works even if the opposition tries to block it. Otherwise you could just stop with the whole election business because it is utterly irrelevant who wins an election if all parties have to agree to get something done. Would save a shitload of money too, elections are expensive, and not only in pure monetary costs. If you allow your parties to take bribes from big companies (or "campaign contributions"), that also compromises their integrity a lot. But i guess that is a different topic.
It is worth pointing out that this is only for the Senate, which is supposed to be a check on the majoritarian House. They're SUPPOSED to halt legislature that might only have 53% support where the 47% opposition feels very strongly against it.
I would also agree with the sentiment that American elections are at least in part supposed to find the best dealmaker, not be a race to elect partisans to ram as much of their opinionated legislature in before the pendulum swings and the other side gets their chance.
A good system does what leads to the best outcome, not one that simply passes legislature. I would point out that it is far harder to undo bad laws than it is to not pass it at all. You'd probably agree if I pointed to the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind as examples.
|
On August 09 2014 07:59 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +Well, there is a very good reason to believe that extending unemployment benefits to a maximum of 99 weeks in recent years held back the labor supply. Rather than taking a job, extended unemployment benefits made it easier for potential workers to lengthen their job searches, hold out for higher-wage positions, or just choose not to work.
However, supply-side theory would also suggest that as extended unemployment benefits expired at the end of last year—despite major handwringing from the president and Democratic leaders—workers would go back to work. And they did. Technically, this would be visible as an outward expansion of the supply-of-labor curve. Without the crutch of continued unemployment benefits, workers are willing to take jobs, even at a somewhat lower wage. They know that work is its own virtue. SourcePeople forced to get to work after entitlements wear out or perfectly timed safety net extensions until the economy recovers? Pundits on both sides can frame it as left or right ideologies working.
Without the crutch of continued unemployment benefits, workers are willing to take jobs, even at a somewhat lower wage. They know that work is its own virtue.
wat
|
On August 08 2014 20:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2014 18:17 Simberto wrote:
The main thing that can be learned from this is that a system that is based on two parties whose interests are to oppose each other cooperating to get stuff done is not a system that gets stuff done.
On the other hand, a system where the president makes all the decisions on his own is called a dictatorship.
The reasonable solution is to have a system that can pass even if some of the people involved in lawmaking disagree. Like, for example, a system where you don't need a 60% majority to get something done. Or a system with more than two parties, so if your ruling coalition does not have a majority in one of the two houses, you can try to convince one of the other parties in there to help you by making some concessions, instead of having only one partner to negotiate with who has absolutely no interest in helping you whatsoever because if nothing happens, he can try to make that look like it's your fault.
One of the major advantages of a multiparty system is also that making the other guy look bad is far less effective than making yourself look good. In a two party system, apparently a lot more effort is put into making the other guy look bad, so the voters think they have no choice but to vote for you because at least you are not as bad as the other guy. In a multiparty system, they might just vote for someone else entirely. Too be fair the whole 60% to pass anything was a technicality that has been abused to the max by the opposition party. There has never been a congress so obstinate in all of US history. Even by their own measure, they have failed on an epic scale...
Reid has done his fair share of blocking- the House passes bills, but Reid doesn't use the "let them vote on it!" rhetoric we once heard about judicial nominees.
It took a while, but the media seem to have finally noticed Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s unprecedented obstructionism.
The New York Times reported last week on Reid’s “brutish style” and “uncompromising control” over the amendments process in the Senate. Why are more people finally catching on to Reid’s flagrant disregard for Senate customs? In part because conservatives aren’t the only ones complaining.
Source
With his strong-armed change to the filibuster rule and an iron-fisted control of the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid has engaged in the greatest consolidation of congressional power since Newt Gingrich ruled the House, unleashing a bitterness that may derail efforts to extend unemployment insurance.
Source
Senate Democrats have a number of arguments for keeping themselves in the majority: The war on women. (They believe there is one and are against it.) Impeachment. Republicans are racists. Republicans are obstructionist.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill on July 29. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Aside from being entirely made up by Democratic consultants who think Americans are dolts, these “arguments” for the Democrats’ reelection share a common feature. They are all arguments against the Republicans. But what is the argument for the continued reign of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and a Democratic majority?
Source
|
On August 09 2014 08:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Lamar Alexander easily dispatched rival Republican Joe Carr in the Tennessee primary Thursday, completing a clean sweep for this year's Senate incumbents who faced intraparty challengers claiming the Tea Party label.
Yet while they were winless, the hard-core conservatives intent on selecting a Senate more to their liking this year were far from utterly defeated. All of the challenged GOP incumbents reacted to the pressure by working to reconfirm their credentials with conservatives. This held true even for those whose credentials should have been least in doubt.
Having induced this embrace of their policies and principles, the GOP's most conservative wing can surely claim a kind of success. And that claim can be shared by the populists who provided the votes as well as by the more organized entities that furnished the funding.
Meaningful as this rightward shift has been for the party and the Senate, the insurgent elements would have preferred to actually knock off a few of their targets. That would have meant more reinforcements for Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Ted Cruz of Texas — the four freshmen who shouldered aside the candidates of the GOP establishment on their way to the Senate in 2010 and 2012.
At the start of the 2014 primary season, a group called the Senate Conservatives Fund, associated with the Heritage Foundation, set out to bolster and bankroll long shots against Republicans it considered insufficiently loyal to the cause. Also active on the fundraising front were groups such as Tea Party Express, FreedomWorks and The Madison Project.
At first, the movement seemed to have a decent stable of horses ready to run in states like Texas and Oklahoma, Kansas and Kentucky, Georgia and Arizona. But several of the early recruits proved distinctly disappointing. Others failed to generate competitive levels of donations. And in a few states, such as South Carolina, Tea Party votes were scattered among several challengers.
The anti-incumbent thrust was parried early in Kentucky, where Matt Bevin's once-promising bid against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell fizzled in May. In the end, the closest the intraparty upstarts came was in Mississippi, where six-term veteran Thad Cochran needed two rounds of voting to fend off former state legislator Chris McDaniel (who is still contesting the outcome).
There is also some consolation in Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who won the GOP nod for a vacant seat. Sasse was backed by Cruz and Sarah Palin even though many Tea Party people in Nebraska preferred another candidate. Source
This reminded me of another interesting piece:
One of the most universal lessons of sports prediction is that margins matter. An NFL team that wins a number of games by less than a touchdown might get banner headlines for its clutch performance. But a team’s record in close games is mostly just luck. A football team that thrives on winning close games is likely to see its luck revert to the mean and start losing its fair share of them. The same is true in baseball, basketball and most other sports.
In fact, at least in my experience, this is close to being a universal maxim for statistical prediction of all kinds: Mind the margin. Oftentimes, we’re interested in some binary outcome. Does the team win the game? Does the Democrat win the election? Do the floodwaters breach the levees? But those binary outcomes result from some continuous variable: The floodwaters breach the levees at 60 feet but not at 59. When building a model around historical data, you’ll almost always make better forecasts by looking at the continuous variable instead of the binary one. Close calls count. Like the NFL team that keeps winning games by a field goal, the levee that is at the brink of being topped during every hurricane is likely to fail sooner or later.
So, while Republican incumbent senators have gotten some credit lately for their clutch performances in Kansas, Mississippi and other states, where they’ve fended off challenges from more conservative opponents, the GOP still has plenty to worry about. There have been far more close calls to its incumbents than usual.
Source
Basically, the whole "the Tea Party is dead!" thing is not as true as some would say (and hope).
|
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million, which is expected to bring in more than $1 million in state taxes, the state reported on Friday.
Although licenses have been issued for about 40 stores, only 18 were selling pot in July, and 16 of them have reported sales so far in August.
"It's off to a healthy start, considering that the system isn't fully up and running yet," said Brian Smith, a spokesman for the Washington Liquor Control Board.
During the first month of retail marijuana sales in Colorado, the state collected closer to $2 million in excise and sales taxes.
Like Colorado, Washington will tax marijuana in two ways: sales taxes and excise taxes.
Excise taxes are paid at three different points in the process: When the grower transfers the marijuana to the processor, when the processor transfers it to the store and when the retailer sells it to the consumer. The tax rate at all three points is 25 percent.
The Legislature is not banking on any marijuana revenue until the next fiscal year begins in July 2015. They have forecast tax collections totaling $122 million in the next two-year state budget cycle.
Source
|
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh.
|
Washington state is 184827 km² large. 18 stores selling marijuana means you have one of those for 10000km², or a 100km*100km area. That is with ideal distribution of those stores. Most people who regularly consume marihuana have some reasonable way of getting it already, which doesn't instantly disappear just because a legal way appears, and that way probably doesn't involve having to drive 50km back and forth to some store half a state away.
|
On August 09 2014 21:08 Rassy wrote:
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh.
The financing/banking issues i.e. "cash only" , banks won't handle store accounts... ect.
That puts a damper on the number of stores/sales at the start.
|
On August 09 2014 21:08 Rassy wrote:
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh.
Its legal in the state, its illegal federally. So its still under a cloud of uncertainty, if you are someone with a decent amount to lose if the federal government catches you, you probably will stick to the black market stuff.
|
A move by personal credit score provider FICO to leave out or discount medical debt from its scores will boost the credit ratings of many borrowers, while helping lenders to better assess risk.
Moreover, FICO won’t consider past overdue bills borrowers have already paid, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The new score will be available to lenders through U.S. credit reporting agencies starting this fall, FICO said.
Lenders have become extremely wary of any blemishes on borrowers’ credit scores, following the economy-crippling sub-prime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s, where banks wrote predatory adjustable rate mortgages for years to people who were not creditworthy. As the house of cards collapsed, their interest rates shot up to levels they couldn’t pay.
With FICO’s new rules, negotiated between lending groups and the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), that era of tight lending practices could be coming to an end — increasing the chances that borrowers will get their loan applications approved or pay lower interest rates.
The FICO change comes after the CFPB said in a report this year that credit scores overly penalize people with medical debt compared to other types of debt.
"Given the critical role that credit scores play in consumers' lives, we welcome steps by industry to adjust how it weighs medical debt in order to be as precise as possible in predicting the creditworthiness of a consumer," a CFPB spokesman said on Friday.
In the previous arrangement, after a debt collector calls, a consumer might pay the debt immediately but still take a hit to his or her credit score, according to the CFPB.
The new scoring system will do a better job of identifying risky borrowers and help sub-prime lenders mitigate the risk of doing business with such borrowers, said John Ulzheimer, a credit expert and a former FICO employee.
Source
|
On August 10 2014 01:07 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2014 21:08 Rassy wrote:
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh. Its legal in the state, its illegal federally. So its still under a cloud of uncertainty, if you are someone with a decent amount to lose if the federal government catches you, you probably will stick to the black market stuff.
No one here is worried about the feds when it comes to consumption.
The U.S. government issued rules on Friday for the first time allowing banks to legally provide financial services to state-licensed marijuana businesses.
If pot businesses aren't violating federal law in the eight specific priorities, then banks can do business with them and "may not" be prosecuted
Source
Even if it is hazy seems like HSBC is cool with laundering drug money, and even if the feds wanted to do something the worst that would happen is the bank would have to pay the profits from it to the feds to settle.
The reasons sales were so sluggish are:
1. We did a piss poor job preparing for a launch.
2. The extremely limited retail locations
3. The legal stuff costs 2-3x more than purchasing from a black market dealer.
4. Instead of utilizing our medical distributors (there are 12 within 5 miles of my house) they created a new group of distributors/retailers/manufactures instead of 18 retailers for the whole state.
5. Medical retailers are also only about 50% of the cost at a new retail shop.
6. 25% tax each time the cannabis transfers hands
7. There's more, but I thought those were the most obvious.
One of the stores in the most highly active markets in the state wasn't open either during that month.
10 times more demand is a pretty conservative estimate it's likely closer to 20-50x more.
Everyone can expect legal sales to continue to climb until we hit the billions of dollars of sales mark.
|
|
|
On August 10 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 01:07 Sub40APM wrote:On August 09 2014 21:08 Rassy wrote:
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh. Its legal in the state, its illegal federally. So its still under a cloud of uncertainty, if you are someone with a decent amount to lose if the federal government catches you, you probably will stick to the black market stuff. No one here is worried about the feds when it comes to consumption.
Everybody's worried about the feds. No venture capitalist I know wants to touch marijuana because of the legal haziness. Sure, it's fine right now. Obama isn't going after this. But supremacy clause and all that, it's still illegal. So when the next administration comes in, no one knows what the status is. It takes exactly one federal officer to decide to enforce federal law to make a huge headache for the entire industry. It's really not a judgement on anything except the current legal status, but it does mean people don't want to touch it for fear of lost investment (and/or prosecution).
|
On August 10 2014 06:20 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 10 2014 01:07 Sub40APM wrote:On August 09 2014 21:08 Rassy wrote:
During the first month of legal marijuana sales in Washington state, stores sold just under $3.8 million
Wth only 3.8m, realy?
3.8m in sales in 1 month on a population of 7m. That seems so low.
With 10$/gram that is 380.000 gram or 0.05 gram per person per month.
The blackmarket must be 10 times as big if not more. Surprised they didn't sell more tbh. Its legal in the state, its illegal federally. So its still under a cloud of uncertainty, if you are someone with a decent amount to lose if the federal government catches you, you probably will stick to the black market stuff. No one here is worried about the feds when it comes to consumption. Everybody's worried about the feds. No venture capitalist I know wants to touch marijuana because of the legal haziness. Sure, it's fine right now. Obama isn't going after this. But supremacy clause and all that, it's still illegal. So when the next administration comes in, no one knows what the status is. It takes exactly one federal officer to decide to enforce federal law to make a huge headache for the entire industry. It's really not a judgement on anything except the current legal status, but it does mean people don't want to touch it for fear of lost investment (and/or prosecution).
"comes to consumption" I'm guessing you missed that?
Anyway there were still plenty more applications than licenses than they had to give out. Despite all the barriers there is still plenty of people willing to fund, maintain and operate cannabis (Marijuana is actually kind of a racist term although most don't do it intentionally) businesses. So those worries aren't enough to stop plenty of people (if they have them at all)
So the federal prohibition (one of the dumbest laws on the books) doesn't really have anything to do with the success or lack of it from cannabis businesses (particularly in Washington) other than it has state officials hesitant.
There is no sensible reason for cannabis to be treated like Heroin (the legal or illegal kind). Most people have stopped buying into the propaganda. It's almost exclusively the anti-science crowd on the right that has any resistance to a minimum of decriminalization and reclassification.
No politician is going anywhere nationally opposing cannabis decriminalization so I don't see it really being a huge risk. Investors avoiding the cannabis industry are just missing the biggest opportunity since the founding of the last billion dollar net start-up. Right now the legal industry has less than 10% of the market, that will just grow as things stabilize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
