How To Invest In Legalized Marijuana

[Restorium2]

This one was interesting

 

http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/01/12/2017/fund-manager-high-marijuana-zinc-shelters-pullback

 

from this article

 

McDonald says looking at cannabis companies now is "like looking at Apple (AAPL) or Microsoft (MSFT) stock in 1985" in terms of growth potential and returns for investors. Marijuana companies only have been public for a couple years.

"There won't be a joint in every home like there is a computer in every home, but we're looking at a potential $40-$50 billion market cap from zero. I think the returns here (for investors) will be as strong as they were in the first three years of the PC."

It's from Nov. 9th 2016.......

[Restorium2]

One thing about investing; Old news is worse than useless, it's dangerous. 

[+washtenaut]

Hmmm, the date I see on the article is Jan 12, 2017

[Restorium2]

Hmmm, the date I see on the article is Jan 12, 2017

It says that now, earlier is said Nov. 9th 2016.  Notice it doesn't have any recent news in it. It's just an old piece with a newer date on it now. Fake news. Just like that Snoop Dog fake news you put up.

[Restorium2]

Real stock news will have up to the minute events in it like something talking about the Trump speech yesterday. The market moves quickly so the news needs to be fresh.

[Restorium2]

Take that Snoop Dog pic one;

 

That could lead someone to believe it's time to invest in marijuana stocks, Snoop and Trump together like that, but it's just a comedy roast from years ago. Means nothing now. 

[+washtenaut]

That article that had the snoop dog picture was dated Jan 4, 2017.

 

This latest link that I provided does provide current news, smartass

[Restorium2]

That article that had the snoop dog picture was dated Jan 4, 2017.

 

This latest link that I provided does provide current news, smartass

Exactly! It was dated Jan 4th 2017, touting Snoop and Trump together. Yet the picture of them together is from YEARS AGO at a comedy roast. It was fake news. Understand? Why didn't you catch that like I did? And then you don't apologize for your mistake. Just keep posting fake news. 

[Restorium2]

Trump's new buddy (see the picture)

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cannabis-thought-leaders-are-cautiously-optimistic-about-trump-185830246.html

The picture is really old. Not a 'new' buddy. Admit your mistake and move on. 

[Restorium2]

This latest link that I provided does provide current news, smartass

 

Then tell me what is useful in it to an investor right now. There's nothing. It's fluffy fake news.

[t-pain]

it is accurate however. legalized marijuana will be 50 billion dollar industry

 

just waiting for congress to fix the banking laws.

 

canada will be first to legalization, in April. invest there first.

[Restorium2]

it is accurate however. legalized marijuana will be 50 billion dollar industry

 

just waiting for congress to fix the banking laws.

 

canada will be first to legalization, in April. invest there first.

How do you invest in Canada marijuana legalization specifically?

[+washtenaut]

Here is the article that had the snoop picture.  I, in fact, knew the picture was not current but felt an intelligent reader would do more than look at the picture.  When I saw you point out the date of the photo, I almost replied but didn't feel it that important GIVEN THE FUKKING ARTICLE that accompanied the picture.

 

Get a grip, you fool. 

 

Cannabis thought leaders’ are cautiously optimistic about Trump

Daniel Roberts

Yahoo Finance January 4, 2017

 

Donald Trump will be inaugurated this month, and a wide range of companies, from pharmaceuticals to health insurers to industrial manufacturers, are wondering what kind of impact the Trump administration will have on their business. In most cases, they have little to go on, since Trump has never held political office. And so they’re left to weigh scattered comments he has made on television and Twitter against his general policy views.

After conducting that sort of analysis, a leading marijuana business publication believes there’s a good chance Trump will be friendly toward the tide of marijuana legalization, or at least not stand in its way. But the same cannot be said of Trump’s choice of attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions.

Marijuana Business Daily surveyed 18 “cannabis thought leaders,” including consultants, CEOs, lobbyists, and three members of Congress, to get their take on what Trump will mean for weed. The conclusion of the new report is more positive than negative.

“For the most part, experts all think we will see a continuation of some form of the status quo,” says Chris Walsh, editor of Marijuana Business Daily. “Maybe there will be some efforts to crack down here and there, but the consensus is that a widespread crackdown will be difficult. If Trump’s going to attack the marijuana industry—like the recreational side, or the new states that legalized—it’s going to be very difficult for him to do that. He’s going to have a very hard time unwinding all the time and money and effort that states have put into these programs.” Trump’s staff did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Four new states recently legalized recreational marijuana, bringing the total to 8 states and Washington, DC that have legalized recreational use. Twenty-nine states and Washington, DC have legalized medical marijuana. The size of the legal marijuana industry, by sales, is now estimated at $5 billion.

 

 

Why Trump could be good for marijuana

Trump is known to generally favor states’ rights over federal regulation, and cannabis has been a state-by-state issue. Trump’s public statements on marijuana legalization are scant, but at a campaign rally in October 2015, he said, “I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state.” He also told Fox News that year that he supports medical marijuana “100%.”

This gives the medical marijuana community hope that Trump won’t interfere with the tide of progress. And support for medical marijuana among Americans is polling higher than 80% these days.

Trump also campaigned on a platform of creating jobs, and the legalization of marijuana in many states—both medical and recreational—has done that. If Trump wants to be seen as a job creator, taking aim at the marijuana industry wouldn’t make much sense; better to help continue its growth or do nothing to stop it.

Support for recreational marijuana is polling at around only 50%. “Does he want to wage a battle,” Walsh asks, “that will pit him against half the country?”

He might. And Walsh acknowledges that negative perceptions about recreational marijuana still dominate. (The marijuana industry has even taken to calling it “adult-use” instead of “recreational” to avoid negative images.) “In his bubble, if Trump thinks this is a bunch of uneducated, pot-smoking hippies, who are running amok being stoned all the time—and people still hold that stereotype, unfortunately, even though it’s not true—if he believes that, then you could see him making a case in his own mind that the recreational side needs to be reined in,” Walsh says.

 

Why Trump’s administration could be bad for marijuana

Alabama senator Jeff Sessions actively opposes marijuana legalization. He famously once said, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” For people focused on marijuana legalization, Sessions is just about the worst possible attorney general pick.

But what matters is how long of a leash Trump gives Sessions to set the tone. It’s the same unknown variable that those in the sports betting community are puzzling over. “It does seem like there are much bigger fish to fry” for both Trump and Sessions, reasons Walsh, “but Trump has shown time and time again that he will pick fights over things you would never dream of. Is he going to fire off a tweet at 3 in the morning about marijuana and set the industry on edge?”

As it happens, Trump has tweeted about marijuana before, just once: he told television host Bill Maher to “cut back on the pot.”

 

Of course, you can’t determine anything from a joking tweet, and some argue you can’t even determine much from the more serious comments Trump has made about marijuana. As Rep. Erl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) tells Marijuana Business Daily, “Anyone who takes Donald Trump literally and goes over everything he has said will just have a headache, because sometimes he contradicted himself within the same paragraph.”

Banking, as it happens, also plays a role in the advancement of marijuana businesses. One of the biggest pain points for marijuana companies, even in states that have legalized and including marijuana-adjacent businesses that don’t touch the plant, has been the refusal of mainstream banks to grant them accounts. Even Marijuana Business Daily, a news publication, says it has faced that problem, because it has “marijuana” in its name. Trump or Sessions could alleviate or tighten these restrictions by telling Congress to exert pressure on banks.

Although Trump would have a hard time clawing back progress that has already been made, some fear he could crack down on the four new states (California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada) that legalized recreational use in 2016, by curtailing their programs before they begin. “He could theoretically try to scare these new states into not moving forward or into delaying their programs until there’s clarification from the administration,” Walsh says. “Clarification that may never come.”

On the positive side, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), one of the “thought leaders” included in the new report, told Marijuana Business Daily last year that he is working on reintroducing a marijuana banking bill, and that a GOP colleague in the House is likely to sponsor it.

Meanwhile, just this week, the state of California retained Eric Holder for a legal position where the former attorney general will be on call for any fight with Trump. California was an early leader in both medical and recreational marijuana, so marijuana insiders are buoyed by the news of Holder’s new role.

In general, it’s all speculation until Trump takes office—and likely even beyond then. “The big problem right now is uncertainty, especially for these states that just passed it, like Nevada for recreational and Florida for medical,” says Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), who is a member of the Cannabis Caucus. “There’s a lot of speculation among us about what’s going to happen, because like in every area, it’s so contradictory.”

Even though there are many possibilities, Walsh, when pressed, bets that “leaving things in limbo for a while” is the most likely path Trump will take. For those who have fought for legalization progress, “limbo,” or the status quo, would be just fine.

For added emphasis, a pro-legalization group plans to hand out joints at Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

[+washtenaut]

I don't think that article qualifies as fake or deceptive news...for adults.  The picture was not fake.  It was a real picture, just not from the date of the article.  If it was the only thing at the link, then the title would be misleading or deceptive. 

 

If after following the link, seeing the picture, and then reading the article, you felt the Trump-Snoop picture was the overriding message, you are not sharp enough to be investing in the stock market.  Save your money

[t-pain]

How do you invest in Canada marijuana legalization specifically?

I'm still waiting on the sec rules about investing in marijuana business in other stock markets like the Toronto stock exchange before investing in any business that deals with controlled substances and dea licenses.

Edited January 12, 2017 by t-pain

[t-pain]

https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ia_marijuana.html

[Restorium2]

I think it is perfectly legitimate to call out this type of deceptive marketing disguised as journalism. I thought that is what we've been doing in this thread since the beginning?

Right.

When the article was put together they made it look like an old pic of Trump and Snoop Dog was a recent 'bonding' to form certain opinions that would be based on false information. It's fake news. Part of all the other attempts to influence American's thinking using false flags. 

And the second fluffy piece was just marketing, not real advice on how to invest. 

Just telling it like it is.

[Restorium2]

I don't think that article qualifies as fake or deceptive news...for adults.  The picture was not fake.  It was a real picture, just not from the date of the article.  If it was the only thing at the link, then the title would be misleading or deceptive. 

 

If after following the link, seeing the picture, and then reading the article, you felt the Trump-Snoop picture was the overriding message, you are not sharp enough to be investing in the stock market.  Save your money

You obviously didn't notice the pic was old by your comment 'new buddy'. So I wouldn't be talking about others' 'sharpness'. Really bad timing for that one. lol

[Restorium2]

I'm still waiting on the sec rules about investing in marijuana business in other stock markets like the Toronto stock exchange before investing in any business that deals with controlled substances and dea licenses.

Right.

It's not so easy to just 'invest in Canadian legalization'.

[Restorium2]

For example; I think a pic of Trump and Sessions would be a more accurate indicator for marijuana investment than Trump and Snoop Dog. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Restorium2

[+washtenaut]

READ THE FUKKING ARTICLE !!!!!!

[Restorium2]

READ THE FUKKING ARTICLE !!!!!!

chill out investing is for the calm

[+washtenaut]

out

[Highlander]

The text of the piece may be current, relevant, and accurate but the piece as a whole lacks journalistic quality due to the title and photo. A misleading title and photo represent click bait/deceptive practices. It's like when you go to the carnival and pay $1 to see the "man eating clam" and end up seeing a man eating a clam. If you're sharp, you might think about the difference between a "man-eating clam" and a "man eating clam." But it's clear that someone is trying to be tricky to make a buck.

 

If I were watching TV and my local news channel threw out a teaser, "Storms move across mid Michigan, news at 11" and showed old footage of tornados, I'd probably stay up to watch the news. Then, at 11:00 when the news explains that it's just heavy rain, I'd be well-informed but really annoyed that I was tricked into watching the late news. It's simply bad journalism, and such practices add doubt to the journalistic quality of the story.

 

Inauthentic practices meant to deceive in order to make money off you.

 

Sharp people might see through the smoke screen the piece provides. But not everyone is sharp. A lot of less sharp people might/will take the initial impression of the title and photo and act on that rather than a critical analysis of the topic in total.

 

Isn't that the difference between journalism and advertising? This "story" is an advertisement in that it is click bait...advertising for the website clicks, which generate revenue. It's a simple as that.

[+Malamute]

 A misleading title and photo represent click bait/deceptive practices.

 I was just going to say that.  :-)