The short answer is we will see less money, and less socially beneficial ownership, than the supporters of this state’s legalization envisioned in the spring of 2021, when the General Assembly passed the law that Gov. Ned Lamont signed with fanfare.

Highly regulated industries with high barriers to entry require LOTS of capital able to withstand short term losses.

This was never intended or designed to be a socially equitable mom & pop industry.

In 5 years we continue to have non-stop posts about weed in this sub. Edging out traffic for the first time in a decade.

[deleted]

Why post this quote and not the following one? It literally follows with “and that’s fine” and then lists the benefits even if we make less than we thought and/or big buyers take over the industry.

It’s a win for CT 🤷🏾 Took too long and too much red tape, but I try not to let great get in the way of good.

Makes no sense.

It's rationalizing the complete and total dominance of the CT market by corporate cannabis. But spin it however you need to.

But the article doesn’t say that. It says that there’s issues. I don’t see where you’re coming from, so I’ll wait and see.

Not spinning anything. Calm down.

You won't have to wait long. The same 4 incumbent players will fully control the market for at least another full calendar year (by design). Everyone can legally grow their own as of July 1st. After that, it's game over.

Don’t think so. I lived through CA legalization and the majority of predictions on how that played out turned out to be untrue, so I’m not too worried. I’ll wait and see. Glad we finally got here though. Easy win for the state.

Yeah, and how is the CA legal market doing these days? Have you been paying attention?

[removed]

Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because you do not meet the required karma threshold.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Great last I checked. Over 1b extra tax dollars in 2022 to spend on schools and infrastructure and voters just put in a bunch of new measures to grant more licenses. We don’t have the size to get there, but an extra 100+ million will certainly help!

I assume you don't talk to any small craft producers out there in California. Because you'd be hearing quite a different analysis.

It was intended to be socially equitable, but in the long run it likely won't be due to the massive amount of money needed to fund a grow or dispensery operation.

I mean, the tax revenue and licenses are just facts, not analysis. You seem like your primary objective is making sure small growers have a place in the market. My primary objectives are safety and tax dollars, followed by price, followed by seller.

🤷🏾 At least we are trying to help the smaller growers.

Are we, though? Have you really looked into it? The smaller growers here in Connecticut are not happy. They've mostly been excluded from access to the market, and those that did get a license had to partner up with MSOs or out-of-state investors.

Safety has been my lane for a while now.

Silly link, and yea I just looked into it. Not perfect, but it is what it is.

Plenty more worth reading.

People realize what was legalized is horrible, the lowest quality standard of weed in existence, black market rises again with less penalties, win win.

Hopefully having a discussion about legalizing mushrooms.

We will be where every other legal state was five years out. More growers, more dispensaries, higher limits, more product availability, and more stable pricing.

It’s not like we don’t have plenty of examples to look at.

5 years? Well Hopefully prices go down

Lol!

Why not some of each?

>Winfield is really excited about the social equity fund, which is now at $55 million from license fees and will expand hugely from cannabis taxes.

Me too.

Heard on the radio the tax raised $250k yesterday as of 5 pm.

America was always intended to be the land of equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

This is the problem. The social equity applicants are required to own 51% or more of the grow or dispensary operation. But social equity applicants are by definition low income. To build a proper grow or dispensary, you need at least a few million dollars, and nobody is going to invest several million dollars into an operation where they don't have control over what happens. No one is going to invest 3 million dollars into an operation where they only own 49% or less of the business.

>No one is going to invest 3 million dollars into an operation where they only own 49% or less of the business.

They already happened. People did invest.

Yes but it's a huge hindrance. Note: I'm involved in the industry.

Who* was hindered?

The average person does not want to invest a few million dollars into an operation unless they have control over that money. If they only own 49% or less of the company, they have no control over the money. The majority shareholder of the LLC would have control and that's a problem.

Hmmm, no shortage of investors though. Seems like you don't know what you're talking about.

OK Mr. Expert. Whatev.

Oh no, you're right. I'm sorry. The license fees were too high, nobody could find any investors and it was so bad that nobody even submitted an application.

You're missing the point. I never said that.

Well lay it out for me.

You would have done it differently?

Would it have passed into law?