Thank you. I hardly ever see comments about the benefits of legalization to casual weed smokers. Maybe we haven't shed the stigma yet, but this isn't just bad for drug lords and for-profit prisons, this is good for millions of consumers!
Depends how its grown. RAND estimated somewhere around "225 per pound for a successful, wellmanaged
operation, plus in-kind contribution of labor...". This was done in 2010 and so its a little outdated now but still a great read.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/201...
If your forced to grow it inside a building, under artificial lighting, with heavy security and heavy regulation; then yes it's ~15$ / oz (225 per pound). Cut out that crap and use a field and it's far cheaper.
PS: I don't smoke and have no idea if 'hydroponic' is better for the plant or if it's a proxy for grown in the US and fresh. But, I suspect it's mostly about post processing.
There's 450 grams in a pound. 225/450 = $0.50/gram.
But that number and mine is nonsense. I was being generous in order not to shock anyone. Look up the price to grow crops like corn, cotton, etc. It's < $500/acre. Per acre. When cannabis is grown like every other crop it becomes dirt cheap. Great cannabis does not need to be grown indoors. Great weed is grown outdoors on the west coast all the time.
> In a more serious tone, I was alluding to the Domestically grown weed that casual weed smokers buying from passionless business will never get to see.
Are you using `Domestically grown' with a meaning that's different from `grown in the same country as the consumer'?
Yes, I am. Domus means house or home. You know, homegrown. False friend right there. I guess when corporations are people, nations are houses and nationally grown crops may just as well be domestic.
Still stands to reason, as with other industrialized crops, that the selection does still not favor taste over yield, speed and looks, nevermind health factors with regard to the fertilizers and pesticides used. Contrary to what the OP might imply, it's not the best thing since sliced bread. I'm not even going of on the tangent about all natural garening, because the ecosystem has ways to fix itself better than a gardner could treat fungi and all that he can't even see, because then I would sound like a spiritual, paranoid pot head, while agricultural engineering seems amazing, but probably dangerous in the wrong hands.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
[LEWIS CARROLL (Charles L. Dodgson), Through the Looking-Glass, chapter 6, p. 205 (1934). First published in 1872.]
If you talk with people in public, is it much better to either use commonly accepted meanings of words, or at least mention your your own definitions before you use them.
> I guess when corporations are people, nations are houses and nationally grown crops may just as well be domestic.
If you want to play the etymology game (for at least as far as a Google query for `<word> etymology' does), `corporations' are some kind of bodies; nations have something to do with being born; and `industrially grown' would mean grown with diligence.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that it doesn't mean what I intended, it just has two meanings. I'm a second language speaker, if that's any excuse.
corporation - embodiement
national - from the place of birth / the brood / the natural habitat
industrial - to grow with most diligence will be (expected to be) most profitable, so it's a nice implicit meaning.
domus - green houses, warehouses or office buildings are houses, even the porches and front yard by extension are sub-surmised, why not the acres, too, or market stands, or maybe somebody just heard and used it with an adjacent meaning to denote the embodiments of economy and now has to go with it, rather than admit it was kinda somehow wrong.
