RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Who will be the 'Starbucks' of Weed Dispensaries?EstevanOutsider wrote: Aurora hasn't really been established, neither has Canopy. All exist by name only to produce medical marijuana and put themselves in position should the Liberal decisions be favorable. People are under a faulty assumption that the Liberals will be promoting marijuana or the provinces will permit it to be so. Goodale's statements today regarding criminal records for possession are more proof the Liberals lied about marijuana. Their marijuana act isn't really much of a boost at all. You're trying to explain to me how a company with a 1bn + market cap can justify being worth what it is worth. You are failing to consider legalized rec marijuana sales could be years away, possibly never.
Legalization and rec sales are not the same thing. So even when marijuana is legalized in 2018, it will not ensure Aurora (or others) are recretionally selling marijuana. Obviously, a company the size of Aurora or Canopy would require massive sales as they have massive operations. Perhaps a smaller company with a more localized market base could find more success.
Anyhow, it's one thing to be an ideological fan of marijuana and there is another completely different ideology in investing in it. Maybe you will be right and I will be wrong, but I don't think so. I don't foresee Aurora having massive rec sales and I am reluctant to believe we will ever see the "rec dream" unfold in Canada as many think it will.
Personally I wouldn't suggest anyone to park their money in marijuana stocks right now. First of all, they will continue to plummet as they have no sales and are being sold on fact; two, they will not have any reason to bloat again until the provinces put
out their own legislation on how marijuana will be sold, enabling them to have sales.
25 million a quarter in sales is not going to work out well for a company like Canopy.
sorry, there are just too many holes in your logic to respond without writing an even longer reply, and the alternative scenario you explained in your previous post is just not believable. You also rely on a lot more equally founded assumptions as the people you're responding to. I don't find you believable.