Pot Luck: Berkeley Dispensaries Now Required To Give Free Marijuana To The Poor

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Earth Ling, Jul 11, 2014.

  1. No, it effects the entire industry and undoubtably your selling point will be at a higher rate. Otherwise it will be absorbed or written off.
     
    No comment on the rest of my post? :smoke:

     
  2. The point being, if we mandate that companies (even really large and profitable ones like WalMart) to increase costs across the board, there is a fairly dramatic effect.
     
    Do we really want the nation's second largest employer to reduce their income that significantly? Do we then expect them to continue forward, expanding and hiring more people? I don't see that as being anyone's true goal. I certainly wouldn't want to do that to small businesses either. 
     
  3.  
     
     
    I don't entirely disagree with your moral assertions,but according to http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/average-profit-margin-pharmaceuticals-20671.html:
     
     
     
     
     
    Gilead, the company with the drug your article discusses, has a 27% profit margin in the year in which a very remarkable HIV and HEP C treatment plan is developed. To be about  10% above your industry's big players in the year you set the world on fire is not really an unusual event. 
     
     
    And from your own article:
     
     
     
    I looked up ribavirin, and it's  supposed to be $1100/week*12 weeks= another $13200.
     
     
    Still cheaper (and now better) than what is out there right now, no?
     
  4. Walmart plays dirty and loses in a Quebec Court and is ordered to pay workers -
     
     
     
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-top-court-rules-against-wal-mart-in-unionization-case/article19358554/
     
  5.  
    I will comment, but it isn't going to change anything, with either of our positions.
     
    Again, I'm not familiar with the entire situation.  I'm not going to take a blog post as gospel (and I didn't even read it, because it isn't the whole story).  I will agree that there are instances I can cite that it seems a company has chosen to pursue high short term profits instead of greater long term profits.  I can't speak to the motives of the company.  It isn't mine.  Company policy might be being influenced by factors you and I are not considering.  They might be making a mistake.  It's not within my purview to make that judgment. 
     
    So, in the situation you are talking about (which has absolutely nothing to do with dispensaries in Cali being forced to give up 2% of their inventory) I will have to say...ok, could be.  What does that have to do with the topic, other than you think it proves the government has a right to take private property, limit profits, or whatever you think it proves?
     
  6. You make some very good points, yet I still insist that the moral assertions should have a stronger weight.
     
    Gilead paid a fair price for the drug. They are well above the average in the year they paid that cost and still haven't really penetrated the potential market. Yes, it is cheaper now, however not as many patients were screened and approved for the 3 pill combo punch.
    Now with a true cure, more patients are eligible and will eventually be cured.
     
    The lower the cost, the more people could be cured and lives would be saved. It is a horrible way to die when your liver is killing you. :smoke:
     
  7.  
    Although I never said a word about the government stepping in, I believe history has proven that there are times when companies will be less than moral and when they can not or will not control themselves, intervention is needed. There have been many examples of business irresponsibilities that harm others and are hidden or overlooked in the name of profits. :smoke:
     
  8. id really like to read it.....no joke.


    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, not everyone is entitled to nor capable of "teaching." And if they were capable and qualified, they probably wouldn't give out free financial advise to a bunch of stoners who wouldn't know what to do with that info.
     
  9. #149 Runningw235, Jul 23, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2014
     
     
    Morally I'm right there with you, although I'm not sure how low of a price I  would ask for if I was CFO. If they want it to really expand, they're going to have to keep profit margin up so that they have plenty of financing options. How we think it ought to be handled is probably our point of disagreement.
     
     
    So is HIV basically curable to anyone who has the funds now? I'm not good with science.
     
  10. Honestly not sure. Initially most of the reports were claiming hepatitis C. That was the first report that added HIV into the equation. So - hope so, but unsure. :smoke:
     
  11. Add to this an inexpensive potential breast cancer "cure" that big pharma's not interested in -
     
     
    Absolutely sickening.
     
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/opinion/a-cancer-treatment-in-your-medicine-cabinet.html
     
     
  12.  
     
    If there's a kick-start fund or something along those lines, I'll give them a few bucks.
     
    I can't, however, truly be mad at companies that have no financial interest in it choosing to give $10 m to the cause. It's a business, not charity. This really comes down to financing.
     
    The managers at any given corporation are an agency of shareholders. Nobody buying stock wants the money to be given to a noble cause. If that was the case, they'd have just donated the money instead. If a pharmaceutical corporation (which I'm generally not a fan of, by the way) began funding causes like this, people run for the hills (in terms of selling off shares). If they aren't financed, they can't do anything or provide medicine for anyone.
     
    I really feel like stuff like this is up to all of us that are interested in helping. I love the quote (not sure by whom, and I'll paraphrase)
     
    "I thought somebody should do something, then I realized that I am somebody." Again, if there's a link or something, I can throw them 10 or 20 bucks.
     
  13. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping the less fortunate, this is just a wrong way of doing it.

    Are they forcing Walgreens to give out prescriptions to people who can't pay? Why should this be any different?

    If they want to put in place a program to give people medicinal marijuana, they need to reimburse the dispensary for the cost of growing and processing.
     
  14.  
    1. Grow their fucking own like everybody should be doing.
     
    Everybody and their mother is in it for the fucking money..even you.
    We're all addicted to that worthless, fancy printed, paper.
     

Share This Page