Quote Originally Posted by Vet70 View Post
I think it is a fact that legalizing the smoke will lead to "higher" student enrollments.
Sorry, I guess the drift is my fault. FWIW, I see neither panacea nor doomsday. States that hop on first will see a $$ bump (see CO), while those that wait to be last will see nothing. But in the end BB is right – it’ll be no more different than tax revenue on liquor, probably even much less in a state like ND. Industrial hemp has potential but it remains to be seen. It could impact the paper industry significantly, for example, because it grows much quicker than poplar or jackpine.

I expect MN to go full legal soon, but if you had asked me just 2 years ago, I would have pegged MN and ND to be among the last. I have no doubt that the ND legislature would squirm with tremendous discomfort if the voters actually approve it, even going so far as to try to stop it. That’s why I find the measure so interesting politically.

Back to students – It seems the legislature has built in a penalty for drops in enrollment that turns this into a double whammy. Do I have that right? What’s the logic? This strikes me as regressive. If you want the schools to be self sufficient, you want them to have as high an enrollment as possible (Port is being a hypocrite here and is just showing his true feelings about higher ed, especially NDSU). When enrollment drops, the state should up support, not cut it, to help the whole enterprise survive the downturn. Everything ND does wrt higher ed strikes me as backwards. Why is that? You need schools like NDSU and UND to build new industries and attract new workers. I’m truly baffled sometimes by what comes out of Bismarck …