RE:RE:RE:RE:Another 50 licenses - No Tinley yetI agree totally Neutral.
As others have said, Jeff is likely waiting for word on the license before a news release happens. In that context, I'm sure they are just as anxious as we are to get word. Maybe even more so though it wouldn't be by much.
I likely won't update the map tonight but when I do and everyone looks at licenses in the areas of the counties in the table below you'll quickly realize that there are not very many licenses issued to date as these counties alone have almost 24 million people. Just browse the populated areas when I provide the updated map tomorrow. Those that do have licenses are raking it in while others wait.
| Los Angeles | 10,170,292 |
| San Diego | 3,299,521 |
| Orange | 3,169,776 |
| Riverside | 2,361,026 |
| San Bernardino | 2,128,133 |
| Santa Clara | 1,918,044 |
| Alameda | 1,638,215 |
| Sacramento | 1,501,335 |
| Contra Costa | 1,126,745 |
BTW - not directed at you Neutral, but the only reason why I put "No Tinely Yet" in the title of my post was to let people know that they didn't have to go to the Bureau of Cannabis and download the spreadsheet and search for Tinley because that's just what we shareholders do.
It woulld have been great to celebrate Canada's gold medal win at the world junior's tonight with a couple T'27 T-Bombs! (I think that's a great Tinley drink name. Cant' remember who came up with it. THCBeverages maybe?).
Neutral2 wrote: I just don’t see why they would need to back on someone else’s license. If a small mom and pop weed shop can fill out a form and get approved i see no reason why tinley can’t. Other then maybe getting licensed a day or week sooner it doesn’t make sense.