Entrepreneur Proposes Marijuana Farmer's Market for Boulder, Colorado


Reason 24/7

If you look forward to the day when you can turn your nose up at mere store-bought, corporate-farmed ganja in favor of organically grown, locavore weed (don't get 'em confused or you'll never tell 'em apart), your wish may soon be satisfied. An established marijuana entrepreneur says he sees a future under Colorado's new regime of legalized marijuana for a Boulder-based farmer's market where connoisseurs could buy the stuff directly from growers. The proposal seems likely to set the progressive town's politicians against themselves as they agonize over whether to cater to a locally trendy cause or to their own control-freaky instincts.

From the Daily Camera:

A Denver-based marijuana entrepreneur wants to start a specialized farmers market for pot in Boulder, but the proposal could face significant legal and political hurdles.

Justin Hartfield, CEO of and managing partner of Ghost Group, a marijuana venture capital group, sees the potential for a new venture offering vendors better access to consumers and consumers a higher level of choice.

He said the Boulder Farmers' Market is a model for similar institutions around the country, and an organic cannabis farmers market would build on that tradition.

Existing regulations would seem to bar such an operation at the moment, but primarily at the local level. That means Boulder officials might well be able to decide the fate of the proposed marijuana farmer's market.

David Driskell, Boulder's executive director of community planning, said city zoning doesn't allow any commercial activity on agricultural land, except for sales of produce grown on that land.

"It's not even allowed for food, let alone for recreational marijuana," he said of a farmers market in an agricultural zone.

Now, most marijuana is grown in industrial zones and indoors.

However, if the supporters of the idea make a formal proposal, it could become part of the discussion as the city develops its retail marijuana regulations.

Driskell said he believes Boulder would have the authority to allow such use—if the City Council wants it.

"It's an interesting idea, but we haven't even started looking at retail sales regulations," he said.

Let the games begin.

And, really, it sounds like an excellent idea. I wonder how the stuff will go with heirloom tomatoes.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Muslim Brotherhood Vows Continued Opposition to Coup

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do enough people in Boulder smoke pot to make this viable?

    1. Boulder? Are you kidding?

      1. I lived there for a year or so, so yeah I’m kidding.

        1. My sarcasm detector needs adjusted.

          1. Sure it does.

      2. as Christopher implied I cant believe that a mother can get paid $7319 in one month on the internet. did you read this web link.. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

    2. The only thing Boulderites love more than pot is regulations.

  2. Gonna need some baked-goods vendors.

  3. When you think of the incredible economic boom MJ legalization could provide (think of all the head shops and brownie shops and bong sales and all the stupid shit that people like to do/have along with their pot consumption which they are more than willing to pay for), you realize that politicians care way more about control than even raising more tax revenue. But we already knew they were scum.

    1. Seeds and stemulus!

    2. They’re doing it for your own good, Epi. Like when your parents used to lock you naked in that cage in the back yard for the weekends. And the only food you got were the grapes that the neighbor kids used to throw at you over the fence.

      1. I see someone has been reading my blog.

        1. Is…is that font made up of screaming mouths?

      2. No, I got some pig slop too, Hugh. See, my parents loved me!

        1. So that’s where my pig slop all went!

    3. Politicians are interested in maximizing their own wealth and power before those of the state. Their loyalty to each other is an extension of self-interest, and necessarily ends where that ends.

      1. Oh, I know. But they desperately need money, since revenue is how they favor cronies and build buildings named after themselves, which maintains their power. But they would rather lock down incredibly tight on a potential massive source of revenue than ever give up any control whatsoever. Essentially, they so badly love to control people that they are actually harming the expansion of their own power.

        Such short-sighted little tyrants they are.

        1. That’ll change. It did before with alcohol.

        2. “Essentially, they so badly love to control people that they are actually harming the expansion of their own power.”

          Ah, so this is where we differ…

          I will concede that it may be short-sighted for the class as a whole, but so much of politics itself is short-sighted for the polity as a whole. That was actually the very idea I was attempting to articulate. However, there are powerful incentives in place for individual politicians to favour, say, prohibition, be they campaign contributions, simple graft, regulatory discretion, or even the ire of particular voting constituencies (democracy at work).

          Can I empirically prove that they don’t just get off on regulating, even when it costs them revenue? Of course not. However, I do know enough about the incentives they face, and human nature, to have a good hunch.

          1. All of what you say is correct, but we are in a unique situation right now where they desperately need money. I think it’s more that they only know how to think as you describe (“If we have more regulations, then I can hand out more favors!”) and have an inherent desire for control. But, as I said, that’s really short-sighted, because let the money start rolling in, let the pot industry get really big, and then start regulating the shit out of it and handing out favors. They’d get so much more out of it.

            Politicians are cunning but also really fucking stupid and have very little ability to think ahead.

            1. Stupidity isn’t necessary to explain their behavior. Rather, they are each locked into a prisoner’s dilemma, and they behave rationally given the relevant constraints. That such behavior is short-sighted and welfare reducing, in the aggregate, is part and parcel of a prisoner’s dilemma.

            2. I have to disagree, at least with the outcome. I don’t think it’s any secret to these people that the State is going broke, but any given politician isn’t thinking of how to increase revenues generally, sense the marginal effect is so limited, but how to specifically increase their fiefdom. It’s the difference between working 24/7 to secure a 1% raise for all employs vs. a 10% raise for your division. Any politician who thinks MJ legalization promises a bonanza for state revenues will shortly face pols who recognize that regulating it under their jurisdiction is even more lucrative.

              In short, I think deprohibition as a matter of budget-fixing utility is mistaken, and this is evolving into a bureaucratized nightmare. But decriminalizing possession is nifty.

              1. I realized we’re maybe saying the same thing, but one of us said it better. Blame the Dos XX.

  4. but we haven’t even started looking at retail sales regulations,” he said.

    Because without regulation, nothing would EVER get sold.

    1. This is why Kafka should triumph in every discussion of dystopian literature: His description was empirically valid.

      1. Ayn Kafka.

  5. HOLY. HELL. They didn’t legalize the marijuana just so a bunch of people could make money off it by providing consumers what they want.

    1. You are afflicted with the subjective Weltanschauung of a producer, not a parasite. Don’t worry, you will be converted ‘ere long…

    2. They didn’t legalize it at all. They took seriously the people who said “decriminalize, but tax and regulate the hell out of it”. Those people need to stop giving them ideas.

  6. as Christopher implied I cant believe that a mother can get paid $7319 in one month on the internet. did you read this web link.. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

    1. Sexist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.