Some thoughts on "LP's"

What Kirk thinks...

1. LP simply means "Licensed Producer." That is a term in the MMPR and ACMPR that covers persons or companies that have obtained a license from Health Canada to produce and/or distribute cannabis and certain cannabis derivative products lawfully to authorized patients.

2. I believe that people should be able to lawfully produce and distribute cannabis to patients and non-patients alike.

3. I have no problem with people/companies that want to become LPs. I have no problem with people that want to or do work for LPs.

4. I do have a problem with LPs and/or their employees or agents that use their platform to disparage other participants in the cannabis industry (eg, dispensaries) and/or that advocate for enforcement of the criminal law against people in the cannabis industry. This is because I think cannabis should not be the subject of criminal law.

5. I am not, however, surprised by #4. Companies try to protect and grow their market share. Indeed, they have a legal duty to maximize their shareholders' value. This is a problem with corporations and corporate law, and with our capitalist/corporatist society, not a problem specific to LPs in the cannabis industry. See, eg, the book and movie "The Corporation" for more on this.

6. When cannabis is legal for all adult consumers, people/companies that want to produce it for sale and/or want to sell it will have to be licensed by some government entity. All legal producers, big or small, corporate or mom/pop, will need to be "LPs" of some sort or another. This, again, is not a feature exclusive to cannabis. There are very few things you can produce and sell to the public in a wholly unregulated or unlicensed manner. Cannabis will not be, and should not be, an exception to this.

7. I am not a free-market capitalist. People advocating for no rules/regulations on the production and sale of cannabis are, in my view, wrong. Deregulation of industry is a net negative for society (see, eg, the Reagan years and what people fear is coming in the Trump era). Deregulation typically leads to market consolidation by the biggest players with the deepest pockets. In other words, all of the reasons people rail against LPs now get worse in a totally free-market environment ("monopoly", price gouging, skirting rules on pesticides, incorrect potency labelling, advertising/marketing, signing celebrities, "profiteering", crushing the "little guy" out of the market).

8. The other side of the free-market coin is overregulation. That has its own set of problems. I strongly believe that the current medical cannabis regulations are far too onerous. They do not allow for easy participation. This causes lots of problems, most of which people seem to blame on LPs when, in fact, the problems are a direct result of the government treating cannabis in a way that does not match its relative safety profile and the reality of the existing black/grey market industry.

one very smart man that Mr Tousaw.
Love how he explains things..simple and TO THE POINT...In other words...you can draw the SIMPLE TRUTH AND REALITY of this deal.

So get at it PEOPLE!!!!!! It's yours to do with AS YOU PLEASE!.


It truly IS

THE PEOPLES PLANT!




suck wind anyone who thinks differently!!!

Cannabis Life Networks response...

Kirk Tousaw is a lawyer and cannabis activist. Along with John Conroy, he was one of the lawyers for the Allard case which protected a patient’s right to grow his or her own cannabis or have a designated producer do it for them.




Although respected and adored by many in the cannabis community, he, like many Canadians, are left-leaning and don’t entirely trust free markets. But as this is a cannabis blog that favours a free market, I couldn’t let Kirk’s recent Facebook status go unchallenged.



Of course, I’m criticizing the ideas, not the man himself. So let’s discuss. Kirk’s Facebook comments are in bold.




People advocating for no rules/regulations on the production and sale of cannabis are, in my view, wrong.



I don’t know anyone advocating for no rules or regulations. It’s a matter of the proper role of the state. Here, I’ll quote French classical liberal Frédéric Bastiat:




“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”




It’s also as if the socialists (or statists, or “liberals” as they call themselves) accuse us of not wanting any rules or regulations on cannabis because we don’t want the state involved.




Deregulation of industry is a net negative for society (see, eg, the Reagan years and what people fear is coming in the Trump era).



Deregulation of the Reagan years? This chart prepared by the US Chamber of Commerce and based on records from the National Records and Archives Administration reveal that regulations have increased non-stop since the 1970s.




Simply, deregulation is a myth.




Today there are rules for everything. In fact, on Tuesday, January 3rd 2017, the US federal government published an astonishing 700 pages of new regulations.



And that’s just one day. They publish new regulations every single business day.

These rules make it more difficult to produce, to start a business, to sell a good or service to a willing consumer.




And these rules carry costs, whether it’s in paying a fee or filling out paperwork.




Can you imagine the effect that decades worth of rules and regulations has had on economic productivity?




How does putting up substantial obstacles to prevent entrepreneurs from selling (while protecting the firms with larger capital and the right political connections) constitute a net benefit for society?




Deregulation typically leads to market consolidation by the biggest players with the deepest pockets.



I recommend researching “regulatory capture.” The modern banking and corporate elite didn’t rise to the top in a free market system, they used state privileges thanks to the regulations they helped lobby for.




In a totally laissez-faire system, where accreditation and quality assurance are provided by private enterprise, in much the same way the insurance industry operates, the only way to profit is to provide goods and services people actually want to buy.




In other words, all of the reasons people rail against LPs now get worse in a totally free-market environment



In a totally free-market environment, there are no state licenses, price controls, or restrictions that impede consumer choice.




How exactly does a government program dependent on state licensing and obstructing competition with capital barriers get worse in an environment where anyone can grow and sell?




Kirk gives us examples of what might happen. None of them hold up under scrutiny.




Monopoly — Quoting economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “If competition is viewed as a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in time is of little or no consequence. The enduring forces of competition — including potential competition — will render free-market monopoly an impossibility.”




When everyone can grow and sell, without seeking permission from Justin Trudeau, the prospect of a monopoly is virtually nil.




Price gouging — If the price of cannabis was fixed, I might consider experimenting with my own extracts. But when allowed to rise, I will allocate my cannabis its most urgent uses, namely, smoking.
Market prices are signals, indicating supply and demand. If a natural cannabis monopoly does form and the monopolist uses this opportunity to raise prices, new potential suppliers would come out of the woodwork, coming from all over the world to get a share of the premiums.




Prices, then, would return to their market-clearing rate. Unless of course, government intervention (under the guise of consumer protection) hinders this process.




We need free market pricing far more than we need federal regulations preventing “price gouging.”




If the issue is the rising costs of all goods and services, then look no further than the Bank of Canada’s open market operations.



“skirting rules on pesticides,” incorrect potency labelling, advertising/marketing, signing celebrities — In some ways it’s funny that Kirk points to all the problems of a government regulated system and then says it will be worse without these government regulations. Something doesn’t add up. It’s as if Kirk was cooking food and found it too salty, and so, he decides adding more salt or different kinds of salt is the solution.




The federal government first said no one can produce or consume cannabis. Then they eased up a bit, but the various regulations they’ve implemented have failed. Meanwhile, the free market has given us the best strains, growers, and vendors without licenses (and lo and behold, nobody has died or gotten hurt, save for the victims of prohibition), but we’re told by “liberals” that only government can effectively deliver a rational cannabis model.




On what basis is this claim made?




“profiteering” — Profits represent arbitrage opportunities and in a competitive market that never lasts. What leftists have always misconstrued as exploitation of workers by capitalists is actually a reward for smoothing out discordance in the distribution of goods and services.




As classical liberal and economist Ludwig von Mises put it, “The capitalist system of production is an economic democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. The consumers are the sovereign people. The capitalists, the entrepreneurs, and the farmers are the people’s mandatories. If they do not obey, if they fail to produce, at the lowest possible cost, what the consumers are asking for, they lose their office. Their task is service to the consumer. Profit and loss are the instruments by means of which the consumers keep a tight rein on all business activities.”




Crushing the “little guy” out of the market — Insomuch that this happens in a free market, it is by consumer choice. But often, this is the consequence of government regulations, whether intentional or not.
The big telecommunication companies influence the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), and thus, Canadians pay some of the highest prices for phone and internet services in the western world.




The Ontario Liberal government has remodeled the energy sector to be more “green” and “sustainable” by awarding exclusive contracts to build wind turbines and solar panels to multinational corporations, thereby locking out “little guy” entrepreneurs without the political capital.




And now, with the help of law firms like Bennett Jones, the LPs are lobbying the federal government to crush the “illicit market” out of existence.




The free market has given us dispensaries and superior strains. Government regulation has given us the LPs and contaminated products. I’m not against rules and regulations, I’m against the government’s pretense of knowledge.




To again quote Ludwig von Mises, “There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way.”




And, “If one rejects laissez faire on account of man’s fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.”

to me its about the freedom of any Canadian who wants to enter into the market...being able to.
if you want to be part of the culture you will probably succeed.

and what Trudy said when he spoke about marijuana ''LEts see what our Canadian people can do with this market,,,.


idiot....stuff the other foot in that sideways speaking mouth

My thoughts. ... my lp is easy... to order..
Sure pricing sucks but the govt should have stated from the get go....it does the job.....
I sure hope they test all Lp's for pesticides now so we can see who's fucking the system and punt those fucks out

maybe this will help you Jackal69
sick people cant afford poison swhag or would they want it.
Its over priced as you know and SOME PEOPLE DONT GET IT FREE but need it to survive.
I for one could not use the LP you use for the simple fact they spray shit on their herb.


m sure you will come up with some stupid short answer to your whacked out ideas but truth is
You seem to be proud of your free poisons.

Oh nooo. ....
Wasted alot of time on your soapbox

Jackal69 said:

My thoughts. ... my lp is easy... to order..
Sure pricing sucks but the govt should have stated from the get go....it does the job.....
I sure hope they test all Lp's for pesticides now so we can see who's fucking the system and punt those fucks out

Click to expand...

I hope they don't poison you....free is not necessarily better now is it? Lp's are what we said...greed bags who now poison folks.

Gee do they all poison?

Jackal69 said:

Gee do they all poison?

Click to expand...

Well that's the 64 million dollar Question isn't it. Most of you LP customer/buyers don't get told until after it's been consumed. If at all...lol. Nice folks you deal with. I'm sorry you have to actually.
Aren't you able to grow? You'd be better off. If LP's are your only access I understand your position
Turns out those who can't afford the sweet deal with LP's may be better off after all.

Jackal69 said:

Gee do they all poison?

Click to expand...

every one of them is allowed to spray shit on their SWAHG and you can bet your free shwags yours has been poisoned as well...
I guarantee you they spray shit on their shwags!!
How do I know...BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO!



Med people DONT SPRAY SHIT ON THEIR MEDS!

Please tell me more both of you

Jackal hippy and gb123 can seem like trolls at first but it's not empty talk. They are willing to help you grow if you ask
They do want to help, even if they don't understand legal matters the best. They mean well

.
Know my rights and understand the law quite well thank you.

Jackal69 said:

Please tell me more both of you

Click to expand...

Tell you what...things you'd like to hear or the truth...you can easily read the truth...ya don't need me or Gb123 for the truth to be known to you.
They may be poisoning you.

But your so good at it

I think it should be at least current testing that is passing or failing...
not" oh lets recall a batch from feb of last year.."
The stuff should not hit the market until all the testing has been completed
Pretty simple really.
I mean why even test for after the fact....just makes no sense

cannadan said:

I mean why even test for after the fact....just makes no sense

Click to expand...

You know Dan...it means nothing in reality...they sell it and worry about it later. Masky style.

Jackal69 said:

But your so good at it

Click to expand...

I don't know that it's a matter of being so good at it. Dispensaries wanted to test their shit and the government wouldn't let them. Now we have big cannabis claiming they're the only source for medical grade cannabis, yet we're regularly hearing about recalls because of banned substances. I don't know what the protocol is. Having said that, given how much patients are paying LPs to produce a clean product, there should be nothing leaving the factory until results are back. Letting that shit go for a year is unacceptable.

LPs did this to themselves. If they can't grow in the size if building they already have, what makes them think they'll be able to grow in a bigger building?.....pesticides.....