Ah who am I kidding. Of course I'm picking a fight.
Perhaps I should clean up my approach then so that we can keep it in everyones interest and constructive, albeit super critical.
You see, I'm a nobody in the cannabis industry. I also have no aspirations to rise to anywhere.
I am however an activist, determined to see the plant being freed for everyone. It has been criminal to incarcerate people for the possession of the plant. The court has given us the leave and partially decriminalised cannabis, which is a massive leap toward freeing the plant. Monetizing the plant is not freeing the plant, but rather transferring its captivity.
All I see when I look at a co-op setup like Canapax, is an obscure attempt to recapture the plant by capitalising on it, capsulating it along traditional medicine lines, needing to be prescribed by such a healer? To what end? Making money? It is at best a poor coverup at an attempt to adopt the current black market trade and call it legitimate because of...?... titles, disribution points? Being the main oke? The first co-op? All I see is organised crime happening under the guise of "contracts", "permits", "licenses"...
Where is this paperwork? Who vetted it? Approved it? How is it in line with current legislation?
How are Canapax franchises already marketing cannabis?
Exactly?
I have asked Mr de Beer these questions and a few others this morning. I have hundreds more, but the devils advocate in me can wait patiently.
Mr de Beer has a history with suspect permits/licenses in the past. Went to court and faced dismissals. The dismissals are now claimed as a victory although clearly weren't when reading through the judgements.
It does seem very reasonable then to ask questions. Not as opposition, but for clarities sake.
Instead of getting a single answer to very simple questions, mnr de beer decided he would rather posture that he thrives on opposition. Well, such arrogance and posturing means it hurts where I poked, doesn't it?
Yes, in this situation specifically it seems that canapax is adopting some of what was driven by the late Dr Ambrossini whose input and work was phenomonal, and while the ConCourts ruling has not necessarily invalidated the legal loopholes that are being exploited here, It does certainly supercede these loopholes in its efficacy in actually freeing the plant. It does feel the late Drs work is being perverted for personal gain, while the decriminalisation has negated the need for this structure. It seems a blatant abuse of the Section 22 permit law.
Cannabis heals on its own without needing diagnosis from a sangoma, or someone with a medical PhD.
The only way the plant will ever be truly free, is when it costs nobody a cent, and nobody makes any money out of it. This is an unfortunate paradox I realize.
The industry will become what it will become. I know I have absolutely no control over that. I am but one voice.
I will remain vocal and present in my activism until the plant has been entirely freed for everyone.
You see Russel. What would do everyone good is transparency with intention. I smell a rat. So prove me wrong. Sell me your idea. I would really like to know who benefits. The people, or white label organised crime?
Its no secret who I am, and my story has never changed. Im here for the plant, not the money.