Insurance idea

Hey everyone, I was brainstorming things I could do to help with the war against the war on weed. I was wondering if an idea I have has been tried, and if not, if it would be legal.

This isn't a pipe dream, I could implement this idea in the future. I am going to be a PhD Economist in about two years, so what I am about to talk about is something I know about.

Ok, we've all heard of insurance for house fires and floods, etc. Why not insurance against getting busted for growing weed?

Heres my vision:

You have a company that is half legal, half insurance. I'm sure there are good lawyers out there that could set this up legally. They sell policies, say $500/year. If you get busted, one person you name gets 100k/year while you are in prison. This way, growers can have some insurance against their families being destroyed as a result of this immoral crusade.

Now, there would have to be a heavy set of restrictions. The insurance would have to have a maximum charge we'd cover - I don't want to insure commercial growers, just professionals that grow a little in a closet and don't want their habit destroying their lives. I have no concern over the commercial operations, as far as I am concerned they are asking to get busted. Also, the payout time period will have to be limited to like 5 years. If you got busted with weed and another drug, it wouldn't cover you.

I think this could work, and would be legal and profitable. I am going to get the ball rolling by asking around if anything exists already. If so, I may purchase some. If not, then I will talk to a lawyer or two about the legal environment of this idea. Then, I will consult with other economists on how the pricing and the policies would be set up.

Any constructive suggestions? Would anyone buy this service if it were offered? How much would you pay for say, 100k/year of coverage?

Yea thats smart.. Put records of alot of grows in one place.. Medical dispenseries are legal in Ca, but the DEA didn't seem to care about that.. And then there is the fact that what you suggest would not even be covered by attorney client privilege..

General Requirements:
1. The asserted holder of the privilege is (or sought to become) a client; and
2. The person to whom the communication was made:
-is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate, and
-in connection with this communication, is acting as an attorney; and
3. The communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed:
-by his client,
-without the presence of strangers,
-for the purpose of securing primarily either:
---an opinion on law, or
---legal services, or
---assistance in some legal proceeding,
-***and not for the purpose of committing a crime or tort***;
4. The privilege has been claimed, and
5. The privilege has not been waived.

Click to expand...