Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducay
They sell wine and liquor and beer together, which as we all know, is just as dangerous of a mix when consumed together.
They are selling it wholesale through AGLC as they do liquor, so why double up on distribution and retail costs when you have the infrastructure that is already in place to meet exactly their specifications? All you're doing by adding in a new set of middlemen is increasing prices by effectively doubling retail costs and payroll costs.
|
Strong disagree there.
Also, at least initially, weed is going to have heavy restrictions on the advertising, packaging and branding. Very much the opposite of alcohol. They don't fit together at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
It's kind of a ridiculous premise though. I could see the argument against having pot smoking lounges in a bar. But it would be like saying a grocery store can't sell chips AND chocolate bars, because together they are worse! Because you basically have to smoke it at home, and drink at home, it becomes an inconvenience issue more than anything because you have to go to 2 stores, but you would still do it on the same trip if you needed both. One of those things where the academics provide policy based on something that sounds reasonable at first glance, but the reality of it is illogical. Typical government though.
|
That analogy doesn't really work at all. We're talking about mixing alcohol and weed, not chips and chocolate bars. I get the point you are making, but they really want to make a distinct separation of the two, which in my opinion is really the best idea for public safety
I'm happy the separation is there. Also, from a business point of view, why should the liquor stores just be handed the keys to a brand new industry? What do they know about the industry?