How Meadow Is Building a Company and Community Around Cannabis
themacro.comThe DEA is now looking into moving marijuana off schedule I. That would make it a regular prescription drug, with regular prescriptions, distribution through pharmacies, and insurance coverage. If that happens, the whole "dispensary" business will collapse.
In California (and in Colorado before legalization) dispensary customers are overwhelmingly recreational users, given recommendation letters from "specialists" who issue them with no medical exam. Their "demonstrated medical needs" would never pass muster with a, say, Kaiser doctor.
The dispensary business won't collapse because they are not competing with pharmacies. Though it will be fun to watch the insurance companies push back when pot is prescribed for whiplash, colorblindness, and genital herpes.
> Though it will be fun to watch the insurance companies push back when pot is prescribed for whiplash, colorblindness, and genital herpes.
Luckily, the price will be so low, even after-tax, that you won't need insurance to fund your cannabis consumption.
>Though it will be fun to watch the insurance companies push back when pot is prescribed for whiplash, colorblindness, and genital herpes.
Why do doctors face no backlash for prescribing painkillers willy nilly. Americans use legal painkillers more than any other country in the world.
I don't think that's true in the real world. It's more complicated. First of all, I get that for a certain minority of users, it is very much seen as a "medicine" but for the majority it is tongue in cheek game and the dispensaries use all sorts of medical language but at the same time treating it as some sort of fine wine. Normally pharmacists don't ask "Would you like the OG Azithromycin or the Sour Diesel version?"
It is very much a recreational users "drug," whatever you want call it, first and therefore engenders many characteristics of its sales.
A normal pharmacist is not going to walk the consumer through all the different kinds of "highs" the "patient" can get from different variations of Vicodin the way a dispensary worker would with canabis.
As well, I doubt CVS will start hanging "420" and Bob Marley posters all over the place or provide the kind "canabis experience" that consumers will want, for various, which will continue to be served by the dispensaries.
There are many strains that are cultivated for improving recreational experiences, I don't see Walgreens catering to this. So, I think the dispensaries will continue to exist in a significant way, but sure some of their business will be taken away but perhaps because of other effects the market for dispensaries will be expanded.
You're mostly right, but there are enough differences between strains of cannabis that while not quite the same, it's more like a doctor talking over whether Lorazepam or Xanax would be better for you. Dispensaries do probably take it too far, but I haven't been to any.
Even for those who use "recreationally", there are different goals. Some people use it to sit on the couch and watch netflix. Some use it to clean their bathrooms. Some use it while snowboarding or rock climbing. A lot of people use it to self-medicate anxiety and other issues. And different strains can be better for each of those.
As much as there may be a difference in flavour for wines, they all get you drunk the same way. Not so with cannabis.
I don't know the legal specifics of this, but is that actually true? It is schedule 1 right now, which means it federally has no medical use, yet there are states that successfully empowered themselves to (1) legalize for recreational use, e.g. CO and (2) legalize for medical use from dispensaries, e.g. CA.
How would a reduced federal scheduling level for cannabis also reduce the state's power?
It's very difficult to do clinical research on schedule 1 drugs. You need a DEA license, and FDA approval. Lots of hoop jumping, lots of opportunity for prohibitionists to forbid the research.
Moving marijuana to schedule 2 will allow scientists to make honest assessments of its benefits and harms.
Off schedule 1, but to where? If it ends up on schedule 2, it will still be very tightly controlled, just like narcotic painkillers.
Have you considered that they could de-schedule it altogether? Unlikely, but about as likely as killing a nascent gold-mine in business revenues, employment and tax receipts. Pandora's Box is already open and while Big Business may want to cut everyone else out and monopolize cannabis revenues, it's not going to happen.
They're selling for twice what we're[0] selling for in Winnipeg. More than twice, if you count for the exchange rate. Marijuana is decriminalized in Canada right now (Allard v. Canada, 2015[1], R. v. Parker, 2000[3]).
If you guys were in Canada, I'd be terrified right now. Thankfully, this blue ocean is undisturbed by the ycombinator fish thus far.
Post April 21st, when the UN convenes, and Canada/Mexico pull-out/renegotiate three of their treaties, the U.S. might be pulled in as a result, and Obama can quietly brag about Marijuana being legalized under his administration (and he doesn't have to take credit!)
1. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2016/2016fc236/2016fc236...
2. http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii5762/200... [210]
The Meadow team seems to be doing a great job. getMeadow.com is really well done and their move into dispensary inventory management software and a POS system is impressive. I have been following them closely and I was wondering if their move into inventory management might have been due to dispensaries not being that interested in a grubhub style ordering service. I am curious about this because I have been working on a "grubhub for cannabis" site of my own and I have found dispensary interest in this SaaS product to be tepid.
I wonder what kind of regulations exist for Meadow. When I opened up a business (not marijuana related) bank account in Colorado, they only had one question: "Is this a marijuana business?"
I was wondering the same. Because they're a middle man perhaps they can take in cash and deposit it into a normal bank account?
It depends on Federal prosecutors.
Considering that concert and event venues were seized under crack-house laws in the early 2000s simply for hosting music events that featured drug use by attendees, actually facilitating drug use seems like not much of a stretch.
ps. I am in favor of complete legalization including the right to grow your own and sell, barter or gift your product to adults over the age of 18.
Good point, although banks are very conservative (with this kind of stuff). My guess is they'll want some kind of assurance from some fed commission to say this is ok or not ok, or some kind of CYA framework to follow.
I know it's an unpopular view here, but I hope Meadow fails and that the tide of opinion turns against marijuana legalisation and the Big Dope lobby.
Why?
The often peddled argument is that cannabis is a "soft drug" is, according to what I have seen, a complete lie. It is capable of completely and permanently altering a person's personality in negative ways. Also, I would not want my kids using it.
Food (or the addiction to it) is also "capable of completely and permanently altering a person's personality in negative ways". Outlawing a substance because of the potential for abuse does not solve the underlying problem.
Hopefully, when you say "according to what I have seen", you are referring to respected scientific literature rather than anecdotal experience and heresay...
Oh gosh, you're really convincing me.
I am trying to encourage you to read both sides and make up your own mind, if you are actually relying on anecdotal data.
> The often peddled argument is that cannabis is a "soft drug" is, according to what I have seen, a complete lie.
Cannabis is a "soft drug" when compared to drugs like heroin and cocaine - "soft" is a relative description. It is not meant to imply that using cannabis is entirely without negative effects.
> It is capable of completely and permanently altering a person's personality in negative ways
Yes, it should be used in moderation - like alcohol, which is a more dangerous, legal drug.
Pointing out the existence of a worse legal poison is not a very good argument for the legalisation of another one. Perhaps it should not be used at all.
Another argument is the incredible damage that drug prohibition has done to our society. Millions of drug users have been criminalised and/or jailed just because they wanted to alter their state of mind. Drugs on the street are often tainted with adulterants. Violent drug cartels have wreaked absolute havoc on entire countries.
The war on drugs does not work, so let's take a fresh approach.
Some people call sugar a poison, some call pornography a poison some people call stress a poison.
Consenting adults not harming others should have the right to poison themselves as they see fit.
Tell me that when you have teenage kids.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but it is very likely that your teenage kids already have access through someone to marijuana [0], regardless of its legal status in your state.
The question you need to ask yourself isn't whether or not your teenage kids - soon to become independent adults - will try weed. The question is, do you want them to be educated about potential harms and get ID'd until they turn 21, or risk them getting an illegal product that isn't tested from a violence-ridden cartel (that doesn't check IDs, by the way)?
I highly recommend that you educate yourself about this drug, as I'm not sure of what scale of harmfulness cannabis can be classified as a "hard drug" [1]. The New York Times' 2014 editorial board's writeup on this issue is thoroughly documented and excellent [2].
[0] https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/high-school...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_harmfulness#/media/File:2...
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday...
Your teenage kids probably already know whom they could talk to if they wanted to buy marijuana. I'm pretty sure I did in the affluent US public school I went to. I was never interested, so maybe I'm wrong about one or two of the folks, but I knew at least 8 people whom I thought would be able to get me some.
Occasional drug use is not a huge problem.
People get addicted to drugs mainly because they self-medicate for anxiety or depression, that's what you should really worry about actually, concerning your children.
@Archio I hate to break it to you, but I was a teenager myself in to the so distant past and I am fully aware of the opportunities available. My point is that I don't want my kids being turned into stoners and that the law should be on MY side, not the guy pushing drugs on them.
You appear to be saying that you had the opportunity to use cannabis when growing up, and managed to refrain from turning in to a stoner. That's how I read this comment - my apologies if I have misunderstood you.
I am going to assume that you grew up in a country where alcohol was available to teenagers, to a greater or lesser extent. And yet you also - presumably - managed to avoid turning in to a raging alcoholic.
Despite the availability of drugs and alcohol, you managed to avoid becoming a slave to either of them.
The mere availability of drugs (of any kind) will not immediately turn your children in to stoners, alcoholics and junkies. The causes of addiction are deeper than that.
As you said, you know what it is like to be a teenager. Teenagers experiment with various things that adults would prefer they avoided. Given that fact, let me ask you this:
Assume your children are going to drink underage (it is statistically likely that they will). Would you prefer them to drink a) a bottle of beer that an older friend purchased on their behalf, or b) a jar of moonshine, which was homemade without any quality control, and might contain adulterants?
This is not a rhetorical question, or a snarky one - I'm genuinely curious as to which you would prefer.
> My point is that I don't want my kids being turned into stoners and that the law should be on MY side, not the guy pushing drugs on them.
You seem to be saying that your children will be turned in to stoners if cannabis is easily available to them. Given that alcohol will be available to them, do you worry that they will turn in to alcoholics?
If not, why not?
If so, are you also campaigning to return to the days of alcohol prohibition?
Are you worried about your kids becoming alcoholics? Or obese sugar addicts? Or chainsmokers? It seems that society has been increasingly successful at regulating those vices, both in the legal sense of the word "regulation" and in the broader sense - by being able to openly study and debate the drawbacks/merits of various "vices", we've been able to come to honest consensuses on each issue that even a teenager can respect.
If weed is forbidden/taboo, there's a good chance that your child will come across a successful/popular/intelligent peer that completely discredits everything you've ever told them about "stoners". My fiance is in medical school at a highly selective school and from interacting with a lot of her peers socially I've been again amazed at how many regular smokers are highly intelligent, driven and successful. Once it's truly out in the open, these successes can have a lot more context and we'll truly be able to study and discuss what truth there is to the stoner stereotype.
>I don't want my kids being turned into stoners [and] the law should be on MY side
Should it? It isn't on your side if they want to (as consenting adults): ride a motorcycle, drink alcohol, go heliskiing, visit a strip club, buy condoms, or go bungie jumping, for example.
Should all potentially harmful activities of any kind be criminalized as well, because you have kids and the law should be on your side?
No parent wants their children to use drugs. In the specific case I gave, the law should back up the parent.
I find this statement highly amusing, as (1) I use cannabis regularly without issue, (2) I've done well in both academic and professional spheres, and (3) both of my parents know and are perfectly fine with my responsible usage.
Perhaps you mean that no parent wants their young child/teenager to use drugs? No one in this thread (or anyone at Meadow) is advocating for that, we are specifically discussing adult use.
If we can take anything away from this extrapolated conversation, it should be that it's important to become educated and informed about topics highly susceptible to misinformation.
The law is never going to be on the side of the guy trying to sell drugs to teenagers. Never.
EDIT, for clarity: But no one who advocates legalization is advocating the scenario you describe. Total fantasy.
@hnpedant I'm afraid your comment is full of logical fallacies, and I'm not going to point them out to you, suffice to say that no, that is not what I am saying.
GordonS> "Millions of drug users have been criminalised"
Well yes, they are criminals who have broken the law. Your argument is defeatist; drug prohibition works quite well in places like Japan and Singapore.
Do you honestly think that drug prohibition is working WELL in this country?
The current POTUS smoked cannabis regularly in his youth. Can you imagine how his career might have turned out differently if he was stuck in prison for a few months or years, because hey he's a criminal and he's broken the law? Which would have done more harm there, the drug or the criminal charges?
Singapore has a middle class "ice" (methamphetamine) problem. http://www.thecabinsingapore.com.sg/why-meth-is-becoming-a-p...
@rwmj who can disapprove of the middle classes getting "caned"? ;)
