Cal. bill that will allow legally possess, grow and sell marijuana

[CleBrownsfan]

Interesting California bill to legalize pot: link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_taxes)

Don't think it will ever pass though...

The bill introduced by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano in February would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana.

[lungs]

Until the DEA gets involved.

[lungs]

Dola

But that wouldn't be a concern as current for now as AG Holder has said he would defer to state laws in regards to marijuana in regards to the enforcement practices.

[JPhillips]

It should also wipe clean the record of anyone prosecuted for possession.

[albionmoonlight]

Until the DEA gets involved.

Yeah. As long as it is illegal under federal law, you are still taking a risk.

Still, though, this might make sense for California in a number of ways because it is illegal federally. You can pitch it as "if someone is a real bad apple, the Fed is still there to arrest them and pay for their incarceration. It just should not be up to the people of California to pay to house them, feed them 3x a day, etc. etc. etc."

Of course, as long as these guys ( CCPOA.org - California Correctional Peace Officers Association (http://www.ccpoa.org/) )are around and able to lobby in Sacramento, the odds of this passing are somewhat south of unicorns flying through the trees (which, it being California, is, I will admit, at least possible).

[DanGarion]

Yeah. As long as it is illegal under federal law, you are still taking a risk.

Still, though, this might make sense for California in a number of ways because it is illegal federally. You can pitch it as "if someone is a real bad apple, the Fed is still there to arrest them and pay for their incarceration. It just should not be up to the people of California to pay to house them, feed them 3x a day, etc. etc. etc."

Of course, as long as these guys ( CCPOA.org - California Correctional Peace Officers Association (http://www.ccpoa.org/) )are around and able to lobby in Sacramento, the odds of this passing are somewhat south of unicorns flying through the trees (which, it being California, is, I will admit, at least possible).

I took pictures of unicorns flying through the trees in my backyard last night! :D

[flere-imsaho]

California could clear its budget problems in one fell swoop (and more) by legalizing and taxing marijuana. Don't tell me someone in Sacramento hasn't thought of it.

[dawgfan]

California could clear its budget problems in one fell swoop (and more) by legalizing and taxing marijuana. Don't tell me someone in Sacramento hasn't thought of it.
California? Hell, the whole country could get a major financial boost from legalizing marijuana and taxing the shit out of it like they do cigarettes and beer AND not paying the incarceration costs of people in jail due to marijuana.

This economy ought to be the best boost the "legalize marijuana" campaign has ever had - it just makes so much financial sense.

[Kodos]

As a person who has never smoked Mary J, it's time to make it legal. And tax the crap out of it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I wonder what the market would price legallized pot at. Right now, it's a function of the black market, so even with taxes included wouldn't it be cheaper if it were legal anyway? Just the government taking a cut instead of the various middlemen needed in the black market.

[RomaGoth]

If you sell it to the state, do they give you an IOU?

[dawgfan]

I wonder what the market would price legallized pot at. Right now, it's a function of the black market, so even with taxes included wouldn't it be cheaper if it were legal anyway? Just the government taking a cut instead of the various middlemen needed in the black market.
That will make an interesting case study when marijuana is finally legalized. And I would expect that whatever difference there is in the free market value vs. the black market value would quickly be erased by local, state and federal taxes.

[Chubby]

As a person who has never smoked Mary J, it's time to make it legal. And tax the crap out of it.

+1

[molson]

People really overstate the impact a marijuana tax would have on state and federal budgets.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Capitol Alert: Legal pot could generate $1.4 billion in revenue, tax board says (http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/023910.html)

California estimates at 1.4B/year for instance.

They've certainly done more research than I.

[Kodos]

Hey, it certainly can't hurt.

[thesloppy]

Aside from tax revenue, it's also worth considering that you're not paying for incarcerating, rehabbing, paroling, and policing marijuana users.

[Pyser]

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

[Chubby]

Aside from tax revenue, it's also worth considering that you're not paying for incarcerating, rehabbing, paroling, and policing marijuana users.

this might be the bigger part of the equation for many states. I certainly haven't researched into it but it seems to be a no brainer to legalize something that is far softer than cigarettes/alcohol. The difference is the lobbying

[thesloppy]

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

Personally, I think we should try to move away from the medical marijuana model. It's a disingenuous program the way it's set up, with only a fraction using for any real, diagnosed medical need. If we are going to legalize it, let's do it properly and effectively, rather than trying to push everything under the broken and tattered umbrella of medical marijuana, making the issue more convoluted and confused.

[dwardzala]

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

[Atocep]

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

The same places its smoked now?


I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.



How many public places can you smoke cigarettes at now? Simply banning all marijuana smoking in public if it gets legalized doesn't seem like a very difficult thing to imagine to me.

[BYU 14]

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

Employers wouldn't let you smoke on break, can't smoke while driving, so that pretty much limits it.

[thesloppy]

Where are you going to allow people to smoke it?

I personally do not want to be around second hand marijuana smoke, and given its intoxicating effects, I don't know that I want others to who might be driving to be exposed either. A lot people minimize the effects of it, but you are essentially taking the worst qualities of alcohol (the intoxicating effect) and combining it with the worst quality (IMHO) of cigarettes (second hand/indirect exposure) if you allow consumption in a public place.

Also, wouldn't californians need to buy carbon credits for the CO2 they are creating?

Well, I don't think legalizing marijuana means you're free to do it whenever and wherever you like. There are already laws against public intoxication, and driving while intoxicated, and I would think those would already cover 99% of your worries. The creation of public places to imbibe could certainly be a legitimate concern, but I think that's a different animal at this point.

In a semi-related question, how aware are y'alls of your state's current marijuana laws? They vary a TON by state, and I find it interesting that a lot of people, sometimes with very strong opinions on the subject, have very little knowledge of the laws in their own state.

In Oregon for example, we've got a medical marijuana program, making it legal for those with a card to grow and possess marijuana, but no dispensaries or sales network set up like the california model. Possession of less than an ounce, without a MMJ prescription, is a $500-1000 fine, but only a citation is issued, no arrest, no record, no probabtion. Over an ounce will get you prison time, but the state has become pretty lenient towards MJ, to the point that they've gone out of their way to announce that it is 'not a law-enforcement priority'.

I heard a story on the news recently about a guy who was arrested here recently for growing. But not just for growing, he was arrested for growing 'too many' plants outdoors, directly next door too a grade school, and he had previously been asked by the police to move his garden inside, but had refused to comply in a timely fashion. You know we're in a slightly different time, when the police ask you to move your marijuana garden indoors, away from the school kids, before arresting you.

[SteveMax58]

People really overstate the impact a marijuana tax would have on state and federal budgets.

+1

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

I mean...I get that there are likley to be a market for the "experimentalists" who really have no clue where to find such a thing...but if its legal...how many of these people could still exist?

As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

[DanGarion]

you realize its essentially legal in california already, right? you can find doctors online, bring them $150 cash, and theyll prescribe weed for you. then you go yo a dispensary, show your paper, and thats it

also, the black market and dispensary costs are very, very similar. about $60 or so for an eighth. if the state tried charging too much, people will just go back to this system. or teenagers.

Hell you don't even have to go to a dispensary you can have it delivered!

Orange County News - Taking the High Road With One of OC's Burgeoning Medical-Marijuana Delivery Services - page 1 (http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-06-11/news/medical-marijuana-delivery-service)

[DanGarion]

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

Employers wouldn't let you smoke on break, can't smoke while driving, so that pretty much limits it.

The one main legal issue I see is that for most employers if you have an accident at work and are drug tested you'd have marijuana in your system, since it stays in your system for well close to a month. How would these cases be treated now, since it's legal?

[Atocep]

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

Legalizing it would make it cheaper than it is now because it cuts the middlemen out of the equation. Not even the gov't would be stupid enough to legalize something that could bring in as much money as marijuana and fuck it up by making it more expensive to buy legally.

I'd be willing to bet homegrowers would have to buy a license per plant and it would have to be for personal use. I'm no tax expert, but wouldn't anyone trying to sell it out of their home then run into the same issues anyone else does trying to buy blackmarket shit? Not to mention the seller running into numerous tax issues as well?

Its the number 1 cash crop for several states and the gov't doesn't see a dime of it. On top of that demand would go up if it was legal. As stated above, you're also saving ridiculous amounts of money by not putting the fake assholes in jail.


As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

Using it as a reason to put "real assholes" in prison when many, many more are put in jail strictly because of it doesn't make it ok.

[thesloppy]

+1

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

A volume grower would much prefer to make a volume sale, and given the choice, I'm sure they'd prefer to sell to the government and get a receipt, rather than to keep selling to Weird Jimmy, and thirty other scrappy dudes. Why doesn't Budweiser cut out the middlemen and just sell on the street to individuals? Because that's horrible business. Likewise, why would anybody buy Budweiser in the first place, when they can just grow hops in their backyard and brew in the kitchen? Plenty do, but then again, billions more prefer to get a beer the instant they want one, rather than having to tend to it for 3 hours a day, for six months, before taking a sip.

I mean...I get that there are likley to be a market for the "experimentalists" who really have no clue where to find such a thing...but if its legal...how many of these people could still exist?

Every regular marijuana user in the world would prefer to buy it in a controlled environment, from a controlled source, with consistent quality and quantity, rather than getting it from a sketchy dude, at his convenience, with unknown results.

As far as policing costs and the like...meh, some degree of savings...but honestly, I think marijuana ends up being the excuse for putting the real assholes in prison (i.e. gang members w/ no other proven violations, etc.). So, I'm not seeing the major financial benefit here...maybe some administrative costs, but likely negligible in the bigger context.

That is just plain ridiculous. I think given the choice of who the 'real asshole' is, between a gang member (or anybody else in the world) w/ many other proven violations, and a gang member w/ no proven violations, the choice is pretty easy. No criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession.

Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you have very much knowledge on the topic, but you definitely shouldn't take that as an insult, because we are talking about weed and stoners here, I'm not fooling myself.

[tarcone]

And you can brew beer in your home or make wine. But I doubt you could sell it legally.

[thesloppy]

The one main legal issue I see is that for most employers if you have an accident at work and are drug tested you'd have marijuana in your system, since it stays in your system for well close to a month. How would these cases be treated now, since it's legal?

That is a pretty interesting case.

Right now, marijuana is illegal even to produce for testing or scientific purposes, so the best kind of wishful thinking I could summon up would hope that once legalized, and tested more thoroughly, maybe we could develop a better and more accurate means of testing for marijuana. That doesn't answer the question of what we would do NOW though, and those early cases would certainly set the stage for things to come, so I dunno how those kind of cases would be handled gracefully.

[SteveMax58]

I'd be willing to bet homegrowers would have to buy a license per plant and it would have to be for personal use. I'm no tax expert, but wouldn't anyone trying to sell it out of their home then run into the same issues anyone else does trying to buy blackmarket shit? Not to mention the seller running into numerous tax issues as well?

Yeah, but you can make any law you want...try enforcing it. Hell..it's technically illegal today and they really have no way to stop the vast majority from growing their own.

As far as taxes go...local "dealers" do it today...why would that change anything? Hell, I bet a solid portion of the ebay businesses out there dont claim all (or any) taxes on their "homegrown" business. If it is easy enough to do...people will tend to avoid taxes.

Its the number 1 cash crop for several states and the gov't doesn't see a dime of it. On top of that demand would go up if it was legal. As stated above, you're also saving ridiculous amounts of money by not putting the fake assholes in jail.

Not if you're repurposing these resources to find the tax evaders.


Using it as a reason to put "real assholes" in prison when many, many more are put in jail strictly because of it doesn't make it ok.

That wasn't my contention...it was a statement supporting my contention that there is no substantial financial benefit for the government to legalize it.

[thesloppy]

Remember that before you even get to jail (which has been estimated to cost $60,000 per inmate, per year) you have to get arrested, and go to trial (often with a public defender), and once you get out you've got probation. That's dozens of state government workers, and hundreds of man hours, before we've even touched on the cost of prison. I think it's ridiculous to say there wouldn't be any substantial financial benefit. Note that California has already stopped enforcing most of it's marijuana laws, so their $1.4 billion estimate doesn't even take into account those costs that many other states are still paying for.

They aren't taxing any personal growers, so abandon that notion. The taxes are for retail sales:

"The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price."

[SteveMax58]

A volume grower would much prefer to make a volume sale, and given the choice, I'm sure they'd prefer to sell to the government and get a receipt, rather than to keep selling to Weird Jimmy, and thirty other scrappy dudes. Why doesn't Budweiser cut out the middlemen and just sell on the street to individuals? Because that's horrible business. Likewise, why would anybody buy Budweiser in the first place, when they can just grow hops in their backyard and brew in the kitchen? Plenty do, but then again, billions more prefer to get a beer the instant they want one, rather than having to tend to it for 3 hours a day, for six months, before taking a sip.

Because "Budweiser dont grow on trees" :)

Seriously...Budweiser isnt "user-ready" and requires a ton of mixture and time to ferment and effort and likely many other things that make it impractical for most people.

Yes, there is a difference between just watering a plant and picking off buds and creating the more concentrated versions that are concocted by the more serious "businessmen"...but it isn't exactly something that many would find overly burdensome to get a reasonable product that "works good enough".

Every regular marijuana user in the world would prefer to buy it in a controlled environment, from a controlled source, with consistent quality and quantity, rather than getting it from a sketchy dude, at his convenience, with unknown results.

I dont doubt this...but does an effective doubling of the (current) price make that worthwhile for the majority? I'm not debating some would still buy it via the 7-11 (or wherever)...just pointing out that not every "dealer" is quite the sketchy scumbag that most might "imagine".


That is just plain ridiculous. I think given the choice of who the 'real asshole' is, between a gang member (or anybody else in the world) w/ many other proven violations, and a gang member w/ no proven violations, the choice is pretty easy. No criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession.

Criminal masterminds are not the one's that are typically doing the driveby or robbing the convenience store or directly causing the problems you see...it's usually the low men on the totem pole. This low men on the totem are low on the totem pole because they have less or no previous experience (and certainly no "record"). What I'm calling "real assholes" are those people that are typically causing these types of problems (or on their way to) and local police know who they are...whether that be thru insiders, tatoos, etc. So don't try to characterize me as stating "EVERYBODY" who gets arrested for pot is a "real asshole".


Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you have very much knowledge on the topic, but you definitely shouldn't take that as an insult, because we are talking about weed and stoners here, I'm not fooling myself.

I'm glad you know me so well to make such assumptions.

[thesloppy]

Well, I think you've got very strong beliefs, based on assumptions about marijuana growing, usage and users that are fundamentally and obviously wrong, but I'm certainly not going to put any more effort into changing your mind than you are.

[SteveMax58]

Strong beliefs? I'm stating opnions of the financial implications of legalizing it. I'm basing those on my own life experiences and (admittedly non-expert) analysis of what people will pay for, when "free" is a plausible alternative.

As always...no "one size fits all" on any situation. YMMV.

[molson]

Remember that before you even get to jail (which has been estimated to cost $60,000 per inmate, per year) you have to get arrested, and go to trial (often with a public defender), and once you get out you've got probation. That's dozens of state government workers, and hundreds of man hours, before we've even touched on the cost of prison. I think it's ridiculous to say there wouldn't be any substantial financial benefit. Note that California has already stopped enforcing most of it's marijuana laws, so their $1.4 billion estimate doesn't even take into account those costs that many other states are still paying for.

They aren't taxing any personal growers, so abandon that notion. The taxes are for retail sales:

"The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price."

There definitely certain things that would save money, but other things that would cost money.

Pros:
-Tax revenue
-Savings in Law Enforcement (though this is already accomplished in many states by de-criminalization. In states where I have experience, nobody does time or gets probation for marijuana alone, and its pretty rare that marijuana is the ONLY crime a particular defendant is dealing with. Officers tend to look the other way on those people)
-Personal freedom
-More resources/jail space for "real criminals".

Cons:
-Health costs (mental and physical - I know there's conflicting studies)
-Administration/Regulation costs. Marijuana leaves the criminal arena but enters the civil.
-Loss of a prosecution tool (It's not that "criminal masterminds are avoiding murder and racketeering charges, and then getting tripped up on marijuana possession", it's just an easily provable crime that pretty much every criminal commits. It's a valuable tool in more ways than I could describe here. It creates chips for plea bargains, evidence of drug issues to get people in treatment for other drugs that they're known to take, provides easy probable cause for arrest (which can reveal other crimes), etc. I know some people have contrary views on stuff like that, but marijuana can be a helpful tool to get bigger fish.
-Marijuana DUIs would go through the roof
-Increased use by minors (I know some people don't think that's a problem)
-New kinds of law enforcement costs. People operate at the legal margins. Let them smoke it in their house, and more of them will smoke it in cars, and in public, and with kids, and while they're pregnant. Many will try to grow it themselves and try to undercut the government's tax-heavy prices. So you're still going to have that stuff to deal with.

I think on the whole, it's worth legalizing. But let's not ignore the cons, so they can be mitigated.

[thesloppy]

Free is a monetary value. Regardless of how 'free' it is (it's not), or how 'easy' it is to grow (it's not). The worlds' mostest freest and totally easiest of weed is still takes at least three months to grow. If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. That weed could pay you, and somehow grow itself in the tiniest apartment, without any lights or food, and you're still not going to be able to smoke it for 3 months.

If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. We could all grow our own apples relatively easily, we could even pick 'em from our neighbors tress, but very few do. It's called convenience, and it drive splenty of people in this country. If you claim you don't grasp the concept of convenience over cost, then I think you're just being arbitrary, and if you don't directly connect stoners and convenience, I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

[molson]

If you don't like the beer analogy, what about tobacco? You can grow arguably better, less harmful tobacco at home, with much less effort than that required of marijuana, but nobody does so, and instead choose to spend obnoxious amounts of money, in order to inhale the most pollutants. We could all grow our own apples relatively easily, we could even pick 'em from our neighbors tress, but very few do. It's called convenience, and it drive splenty of people in this country. If you claim you don't grasp the concept of convenience over cost, then I think you're just being arbitrary, and if you don't directly connect stoners and convenience, I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

The difference is that this country already has an extensive, illegal, marijuana network. A lot of that will go away if it's legal, but not all of it (especially if taxes are prohibitive, which they have to be to make it worth it, considering the financial and societal costs). It will still be in place. Nobody grows their own tobacco.

[thesloppy]

I think on the whole, it's worth legalizing. But let's not ignore the cons, so they can be mitigated.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that there aren't any cons, I'm sorry if I gave that impression. It's also worth considering that legalizing marijuana, and regulating the sales, would put most of the thousands of marijuana middlemen out of work, and those dudes would likely look for other work in similar grey/black markets, which might not be a tasty immediate result. It's also worth noting that it's a dicey subject to begin with, and with our loopy government, the results of legalization could be so horribly mutated and wonky that even the advocates wouldn't be happy. As I said earlier somewhere, I'd hate things to get legalized entirely under the auspices of 'medical marijauna', which probably applies to 5-10% of those currently using those benefits, and would undoubtedly balloon into something truly ridiculous and absurd under federal guidance.

[SteveMax58]

I would once again assert that you don't sound like you know what you're talking about.

And I'm the one with strong beliefs, eh?

I suspect somebody hears what he wants to hear when somebody disagrees with his strong beliefs.

[Julio Riddols]

I'd have gone with the tobacco argument too. One could grow his own if desired, but one prefers to purchase cigarettes, even at the prices they have climbed to. Even if one "Rolls his own" he still buys the products from a shop.

For marijuana, I think the best part of legalizing it would be that it would be taking one of the most commonly used drugs out of criminals hands. There would no longer be dealers who are selling coke or heroin on the side and dealing weed as well, which will likely have an impact on the amount of people who go on to harder drugs due to the availability of them. In other words, people that smoke weed will not be around the other drugs as often (of course it will still happen) or associate as often with people who want to sell them the other drugs.

You add that with the money it would bring in, and if a state or two can show that they can implement the legalization of marijuana properly, I think it would be a damn fine idea for the whole country to get behind eventually.

Police it like alcohol and tobacco are policed today. I'm almost certain that when one state finally does make the leap to legalization, others will begin following suit once the positives begin to reveal themselves to a wider portion of the general voting public. Cali is a great place to start.

Taking a page from several foreign countries where it is legal seems to be a good idea, as it seems to have made a good difference in the countries where this has occurred.

[thesloppy]

And I'm the one with strong beliefs, eh?

I suspect somebody hears what he wants to hear when somebody disagrees with his strong beliefs.

Again, if we're talking about '"stoners like (and will gladly pay for) convenience" I really don't know where you think the wiggle room is.

[DanGarion]

Yes, there is a difference between just watering a plant and picking off buds and creating the more concentrated versions that are concocted by the more serious "businessmen"...but it isn't exactly something that many would find overly burdensome to get a reasonable product that "works good enough".


I'm not sure about that, you can grow veggies at home, but not many people really do...

[thesloppy]

The difference is that this country already has an extensive, illegal, marijuana network. A lot of that will go away if it's legal, but not all of it (especially if taxes are prohibitive, which they have to be to make it worth it, considering the financial and societal costs). It will still be in place. Nobody grows their own tobacco.

Sure, some folks would remain with their tried and true smalltime dealers, but I think those people would be in the vast minority. I think non-users underestimate how easy it is to 'get weed'. Certainly not everyone is a sketchy scumbag, some dealers are great dudes, or might even be your close friend...but that doesn't mean they're on your schedule, always answer the phone, live conveniently nearby, or offer top quality, quantity, and a varied selection....your usually lucky if they're one of those things. Any regular stoner would gladly pay for any/all of those things.

[Schmidty]

I would imagine it would probably be restricted to your residence, which is one of the few places you can truly smoke as well.

What about homes with children? Should they have to get high off of second-hand pot stink?

[SteveMax58]

Again, if we're talking about '"stoners like (and will gladly pay for) convenience" I really don't know where you think the wiggle room is.

The difference is that you assume it would be as cheap as it is today...only with more availability.

I'm merely pointing out that the government can't possibly take a piece of the pie and have it turnout cheaper. This makes it easier to rationalize growing it.

BTW...the analogy to tobacco really isn't that close either (maybe apples are better...but there are too many alternatives to apples vs. pot). People who smoke cigaretes (again...majority...not necessarily "you" if you happen to smoke) are addicted to the other crap in it. So, growing your own tobacco wouldnt satisfy the addiction of "cigarettes" by smoking "tobacco".

I understand the point on convenience...but my only argument was that there is a pricepoint people are used to paying for pot...go over it a little, and people won't mind, double it by taxing the hell out of it (i.e. the only real reason the government might legalize it), and many will opt to find cheaper methods that are already familiar to them.

[SteveMax58]

I'm not sure about that, you can grow veggies at home, but not many people really do...

People don't because veggies are ridiculously cheap. If the government levied massive taxes on them because they were deemed harmful and recreational...they would be much more expensive than $0.49/lb (or whatever).

[thesloppy]

What about homes with children? Should they have to get high off of second-hand pot stink?

You could probably smoke in the outside area of your own residence. I don't think you can get high off second-hand pot smoke....but I'm not going to defend someone smoking weed with their kids in the room. And it certainly does reek. It's worth noting that the actual act of smoking marijuana isn't analogous to smoking indoors though, as what qualifies as a typical marijuana smoker might take 6 puffs a night, whereas a 'typical' smoker is likely at least a half-a-pack-day-er, which is likely hundreds or thousands more puffs.

[thesloppy]

I understand the point on convenience...but my only argument was that there is a pricepoint people are used to paying for pot...go over it a little, and people won't mind, double it by taxing the hell out of it (i.e. the only real reason the government might legalize it), and many will opt to find cheaper methods that are already familiar to them.

I agree with you in theory, but for whatever it's worth, a $50 an ounce tax as stated in the article, is not doubling the cost. An ounce at a CA dispensary is likely between $400 and $500, so it's a 10-15% increase. Any consumer would gladly pay that extra 10-15% if it were passed on directly to them, and even that isn't necessarily guaranteed. As someone stated earlier, the government is (likely) smart enough to not price itself out of the game immediately, and for all we know the dispensaries are making a high enough margin without that they could stomach that tax without effectively raising the prices at all...especially if gray/black market competition still exists at the same pricepoint.

[dawgfan]

I'm curious about this contention that marijuana would get more expensive if it were legal. Reasoning behind this contention?

[SteveMax58]

I'm curious about this contention that marijuana would get more expensive if it were legal. Reasoning behind this contention?

Taxes...and not the 6-10% sales tax variety. It would be taxed higher than cigarettes per (government-estimated) daily intake.

I also don't think the medicinal marijuan supplier pricing would apply to non-medicinal use. Just an opnion...everybody has them.

[thesloppy]

I'm curious about this contention that marijuana would get more expensive if it were legal. Reasoning behind this contention?

This is actually a pretty valid question. Legalizing it would greatly reduce the risk and the costs, making it cheaper to grow and distribute in bulk. The tobacco analogy comes up again, as there's a plant that is arguably just as easy to grow, but processed a thousand times more, truly taxed a thousand times over, and still sell for a tenth the price of the same weight of marijuana. I think you could certainly argue that there's plenty of room for the price to drop, even with a 10-15% tax.

[dawgfan]

Taxes...and not the 6-10% sales tax variety. It would be taxed higher than cigarettes per (government-estimated) daily intake.

I also don't think the medicinal marijuan supplier pricing would apply to non-medicinal use. Just an opnion...everybody has them.

Of course there would be taxes on it. But the actual cost of growing and distributing it would be quite a bit less too if it were legal. You seriously think the taxation on it would be higher than the reduction in production costs if it were legal?

What are you, high?

[SteveMax58]

Of course there would be taxes on it. But the actual cost of growing and distributing it would be quite a bit less too if it were legal. You seriously think the taxation on it would be higher than the reduction in production costs if it were legal?

What are you, high?

For every efficiency of production you think there would be, rest assured there is an offsetting government agency that will drive up cost by requiring a good number of hoops to be jumped through that do not exist today.

Look, I'm not telling you it doesnt have any market, or that there isn't a business model for it. People sell all kinds of useless crap that has no recreational component to it and make a living.

I'm not sure why everybody continues to build these preconceived straman arguments which, while wrong in their logic, aren't even the counterpoints. My contention has been that it's nowhere near as lucrative for the taxpayer as many would like to believe.

[thesloppy]

I'm not sure why everybody continues to build these preconceived straman arguments which, while wrong in their logic, aren't even the counterpoints. My contention has been that it's nowhere near as lucrative for the taxpayer as many would like to believe.

Because what you're now referring to as strawmen, started out as the basis of your argument:

Why would anybody even pay for it when you could, in theory, just grow it in your backyard? Or you have 1 friend who has plenty of room and you grow it at his house, etc. Little to no impact from this, with the exception of the "high volume" or "concetrated" growers. But then...why wouldn't they just keep selling to people like they do today?

If it's not for any of the reasons already discussed, those in your first post, or laid out in the article, why do you think it's nowhere near as lucrative as those pushing the bill (who appear to have done some research) would lead you to believe?

[SteveMax58]

If it's not for any of the reasons already discussed, those in your first post, or laid out in the article, why do you think it's nowhere near as lucrative as those pushing the bill (who appear to have done some research) would lead you to believe?

Because it is something that can be done, tax free, in the same way it is done today. You've contended that it's too much effort for stoners to bother and I disagree due to "free" being a better pricepoint than "not free". You say that I cant possibly know what I'm talking about because I diagree with that, and proceed to give you plausible reasons for why it is not only "not free", but in fact, could end up more than current costs.

Neither of us can unequivocably prove our contention, so I'm not sure what you're looking to prove or disprove.

As far as strawmen...I'm referring to arguments of "real assholes" meaning "pot dealers" or that it's fine to put people in jail for erroneous reasons as well as whether production cost efficiencies will outweigh taxes. The former should be obvious enough, but the latter is an ancillary argument because it still isnt cheaper than free and really can't be proven until there is precedent for it.

[thesloppy]

Because it is something that can be done, tax free, in the same way it is done today. You've contended that it's too much effort for stoners to bother and I disagree due to "free" being a better pricepoint than "not free". You say that I cant possibly know what I'm talking about because I diagree with that, and proceed to give you plausible reasons for why it is not only "not free", but in fact, could end up more than current costs.

Neither of us can unequivocably prove our contention, so I'm not sure what you're looking to prove or disprove.

Actually, that's the point, I can unequivocally prove my contention:

All of those same people who are currently buying marijuana from California dispensaries, are doing so with the very card that also allows them to grow marijuana, but they're not growing it, they're buying it. In droves. Point proved.

[SteveMax58]

Actually, that's the point, I can unequivocally prove my contention:

All of those same people who are currently buying marijuana from California dispensaries, are doing so with the very card that also allows them to grow marijuana, but they're not growing it, they're buying it. In droves. Point proved.

They are buying it on the pretense of "medicinal"...how does that prove anything in relation to "non-medicinal" usage? Did I completely miss something?

You can also be administered morphine, oxycontin(sp?), etc for medicinal purposes...doesnt mean you are going to buy them at 7-11 for recreational use...and doesnt mean it has the same price if it were to happen.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Very few smokers will grow their own. Come on. Especially if you want something good.

And from what I understand the rates paid for medicinal in CA are comparable to the rest of the country.

[tarcone]

What about homes with children? Should they have to get high off of second-hand pot stink?

Please. What about second hand cigarette smoke? What about dads fridge full of beer that he doesnt miss one or two from? that is a weak argument.

[thesloppy]

They are buying it on the pretense of "medicinal"...how does that prove anything in relation to "non-medicinal" usage? Did I completely miss something?

You can also be administered morphine, oxycontin(sp?), etc for medicinal purposes...doesnt mean you are going to buy them at 7-11 for recreational use...and doesnt mean it has the same price if it were to happen.

They have the option to grow completely 'free' (by your definition) weed, they choose instead to pay a premium for it. The entire basis of your argument was that people with the option to grow free weed won't pay a for it. I don't think you really need the dots connected for you there, you're just being contrary at this point.

The 'medical users' is a nice touch from someone who just complained about strawmen, but again you're entire argument is based around growing weed being 'free' and 'easy', so to turn around and say medical users couldn't 'water a plant and pick some buds' would be contrary AND hypocritical. Most of the medical conditions necessary for getting a medical card would certainly allow for your understanding of growing marijuana, and that would be IF I were willing to concede that all of California's MMJ users actually had valid medical conditions.

[lungs]

If only it were simple as simply throwing a few seeds out in the back yard and watching them grow. If you don't take careful care of these plants they'll be ditch weed. Impotent. Not worth scorching the throat with.

You have to know what the fuck you are doing. I'm sure there will be Marijuana Clubs, similar to Beer Clubs where people trade homegrown. I'm guessing there would be some kind of regulation that would fall under the USDA against unlawful cultivation over a certain amount (ie: evading taxes).

So there's some enforcement costs there, but those would be dwarfed due to the fact that marijuana would trade just like any other commodity to a degree. Enforcement won't be as large of scale as it is now due to the fact that most cultivation would be out and in the open and properly regulated, unlike today where ALL cultivation is illegal.

[SteveMax58]

Very few smokers will grow their own. Come on. Especially if you want something good.

Sure...assuming it's the same or similar price. Maybe it's just my own experience growing up in Florida...but I don't recall too many regular smokers that did NOT grow their own plants. Of course...it's pretty easy to do there year-round, so maybe this is more of a unique concept than I realize.


And from what I understand the rates paid for medicinal in CA are comparable to the rest of the country.

All I'm saying is that I dont think the same taxes and regulations (or lack thereof) would be placed on recreational marijuana...thus leaving the very real plausibility for "local growers" to continue making tax free money since those same lines of communication/distribution exist already. You obviously cant say everybody...but if you already get it from so & so...then my opnion is that you'll still have that option, and that option is likely to be cheaper. Thus, less lucrative tax revenue than (my perception) of people's opinion. Not to even mention the rest of the possible financial detractors for taxpayers.


I honestly don't care that much either way if it were legalized. I don't consider it overly harmful, in and of itself, but do question whether it is of any real benefit beyond the medicianl uses and whether it leads to a slippery slope. Not a doctor here...so my opnion is pretty non-scientific.

[dawgfan]

I don't consider it overly harmful, in and of itself, but do question whether it is of any real benefit beyond the medicianl uses and whether it leads to a slippery slope. Not a doctor here...so my opnion is pretty non-scientific.
Slippery slope? Hardly. Very few people start doing harder drugs because they started smoking marijuana that wouldn't have done so anyway. Maybe there's a few people that tried harder drugs because their dope dealer suggested they do so, but the vast majority of people that do harder drugs do so because they want to, not because marijuana opened some kind of "slippery slope".

[thesloppy]

If only it were simple as simply throwing a few seeds out in the back yard and watching them grow. If you don't take careful care of these plants they'll be ditch weed. Impotent. Not worth scorching the throat with.

And even if it were that easy, you could throw all the seeds in the ground you want, from September to May, and you're not going to be smoking shit for 9 months, regardless of how free and easy it is. You can do your thing inside, but after soil, food, pesticides, lights, fans, monthly electrical bills, and endless hours spent tending, I would really question calling that 'free'.

[thesloppy]

I don't consider it overly harmful, in and of itself, but do question whether it is of any real benefit beyond the medicianl uses and whether it leads to a slippery slope. Not a doctor here...so my opnion is pretty non-scientific.

Well, I don't buy the slippery slope stuff, but if anything taking weed out of the hand of a street dealer, and into a controlled sales environment, is going to greatly reduce the chance that the recreational marijuana user even comes into contact with harder drugs.

[SteveMax58]

The 'medical users' is a nice touch from someone who just complained about strawmen, but again you're entire argument is based around growing weed being 'free' and 'easy', so to turn around and say medical users couldn't 'water a plant and pick some buds' would be contrary AND hypocritical. Most of the medical conditions necessary for getting a medical card would certainly allow for your understanding of growing marijuana, and that would be IF I were willing to concede that all of California's MMJ users actually had valid medical conditions.

If you aren't going to get the concept of recreational vs. medicinal...and the associated differences that the government tends to place on them...then yeah, I'm sure you're going to see anything I say as being contrary.

[SteveMax58]

Slippery slope? Hardly. Very few people start doing harder drugs because they started smoking marijuana that wouldn't have done so anyway. Maybe there's a few people that tried harder drugs because their dope dealer suggested they do so, but the vast majority of people that do harder drugs do so because they want to, not because marijuana opened some kind of "slippery slope".

That isn't quite the slippery slope I meant. I was speaking more generally about legalization of other substances.

I'm not sold on the thought myself...just a vague thought.

[dawgfan]

For every efficiency of production you think there would be, rest assured there is an offsetting government agency that will drive up cost by requiring a good number of hoops to be jumped through that do not exist today.
Ho-kay - if you say so. So your contention then is that if tobacco and alcohol were illegal, they'd cost no more, if not less, than they do now?

While the authorities are getting very lax about possession of small amounts of marijuana, there is still a great deal of effort made to target large scale growers and distributors. That effort drives up the cost of growing and delivering marijuana to the end user in a significant way.

The government isn't so stupid as to so heavily tax legal marijuana that it would be more expensive than it is currently as an illegal drug. And any tax revenue the government gets from it is more than they get now. And I think we can all agree that usage would go up if it were legal, even if by a modest amount after the inevitable initial surge after full legalization. Not to mention the reduction in cost to government agencies in fighting marijuana growing and distribution and the cost of incarcerating people due to marijuana usage/possession/distribution/cultivation.

I suppose the state of California is completely off their rockers to think that they'd gain anything close to $1.4B in tax revenue according to you. And your qualifications and highly researched reasons for thinking this are...?

[SteveMax58]

I suppose the state of California is completely off their rockers to think that they'd gain anything close to $1.4B in tax revenue according to you. And your qualifications and highly researched reasons for thinking this are...?

My single best qualification is not being a California budget estimator.

[CU Tiger]

Sure...assuming it's the same or similar price. Maybe it's just my own experience growing up in Florida...but I don't recall too many regular smokers that did NOT grow their own plants. Of course...it's pretty easy to do there year-round, so maybe this is more of a unique concept than I realize.




I couldnt care either way to be honest, but i think ypu are only thinking of the small time dealer. I can show you a guy today (a customer of mine) thats house is between a senior level BoA exec and a Carolina Panthers "star" player that is un married and makes his living selling pot...I would guess he rakes ine excess of 1MM annually...and is fairly open about it.

According to him he makes his "fortune" of 25 acres...you mean to tell me that if it was a legal alternative someone like my grandfather with 450 acres that he can no longer grow cotton on, would not be making a transition?

I would estimate (from my ancient experience) that the average pot stash has passed 6-8 hands from ground to fire...each with a mark up, usually in the 100% range...if we reduce that to 2 bureacracies it should be a push

[thesloppy]

If you aren't going to get the concept of recreational vs. medicinal...and the associated differences that the government tends to place on them...then yeah, I'm sure you're going to see anything I say as being contrary.

I get the concept of recreational vs. medicinal. I don't see how that applies in any way to why licensed medical users buy marijuana rather than grow it, and recreational users wouldn't.

[SteveMax58]

I couldnt care either way to be honest, but i think ypu are only thinking of the small time dealer. I can show you a guy today (a customer of mine) thats house is between a senior level BoA exec and a Carolina Panthers "star" player that is un married and makes his living selling pot...I would guess he rakes ine excess of 1MM annually...and is fairly open about it.

According to him he makes his "fortune" of 25 acres...you mean to tell me that if it was a legal alternative someone like my grandfather with 450 acres that he can no longer grow cotton on, would not be making a transition?

I would estimate (from my ancient experience) that the average pot stash has passed 6-8 hands from ground to fire...each with a mark up, usually in the 100% range...if we reduce that to 2 bureacracies it should be a push

While I dont think I've known anybody that made that much off of pot (hard to get numbers from people)...I'm not completely dismissing them. I just see enough intervention from the FDA, ATF, and of course, the elected officials trying to overcompensate on regulation and limit the areas of growth that it very well could be more expensive and costly in the end. I could be wrong...but I look at how they tax cigarettes and beer and tend to believe there are easier blackmarket/homegrown alternatives for pot given the relative ease (compared to the others) and current networks in place.

[dawgfan]

My single best qualification is not being a California budget estimator.
Clever response, and intellectually bankrupt. We can safely discount your opinions on this matter from here on out.

[SteveMax58]

I get the concept of recreational vs. medicinal. I don't see how that applies in any way to why licensed medical users buy marijuana rather than grow it, and recreational users wouldn't.

My contention is that the medical users arent paying the bloated price that (IMO) recreational users may pay if it is regulated similarly (or worse) than beer & cigarettes.

I'm not claiming to have every answer...but I also don't have nearly as much faith that the government has any idea of the amount of "proper" regulation or tax that others have. Somebody is likely to be wrong...if it passes.

[SteveMax58]

Clever response, and intellectually bankrupt. We can safely discount your opinions on this matter from here on out.

Sure...because you're posts have been nothing but informative, well-researched, and factual.

You were the first to jump on the snarky, dismissive train...I just hopped on for a short ride with you.

[dawgfan]

Sure...because you're posts have been nothing but informative, well-researched, and factual.

You were the first to jump on the snarky, dismissive train...I just hopped on for a short ride with you.
My posts are based on common sense and have logic behind them as well as the support of a study that suggests a major tax revenue boost for the state of California.

Your posts are based off an apparent complete distrust of anything having to do with government.

To top it off, of all the people I've ever talked to or read about discussing the financial implications of legalizing marijuana, you are the first to suggest that the cost would actually go up.

[SteveMax58]

My posts are based on common sense and have logic behind them as well as the support of a study that suggests a major tax revenue boost for the state of California.

Your posts are based off an apparent complete distrust of anything having to do with government.

To top it off, of all the people I've ever talked to or read about discussing the financial implications of legalizing marijuana, you are the first to suggest that the cost would actually go up.

Over-zealous and opportunistic government...yes. Tends to describe most of the legislative branch, and the other 2 periodically, IMO.

I don't know what you want for a basis of discussion in order to disagree with a point...do you require a complete financial impact independantly compiled by me before forming an opinion?

Everybody has their own view of the world from their own experiences in life...some of my experiences have shown me the uglier side of government legislature and how idiotic it actually is for consumers and the general public...yet it gets championed by our fine elected leaders as beneficial. Sorry if I just don't tend to place high value on their opinions.

Maybe homegrowers arent as common or likely to happen as a consequence as my experiences growing up tell me...doesnt mean I'm illogical and lacking common sense and doesnt mean you are the only one entitled to an opinion without ridicule.

[SteveMax58]

Ho-kay - if you say so. So your contention then is that if tobacco and alcohol were illegal, they'd cost no more, if not less, than they do now?

And to answer your question seriously...yes, of course tobacco would be cheaper...and maybe on alcohol. Why would you think otherwise?

If you play out the hypothetical, tobacco may or may not be cheaper to grow and hide from the government in the US...but it would of course be elsewhere in the world.

This is a tangent point here...but I dont see how you think the price of cigarettes would, what? Triple to equal the tax on it? And that doesnt even count the behind the scenes regulation costs that are built into the price of the cigarettes.

[thesloppy]

My contention is that the medical users arent paying the bloated price that (IMO) recreational users may pay if it is regulated similarly (or worse) than beer & cigarettes.


I would agree with you, if that were the case, but in this specific case, they appear to have addressed things pretty well, and the tax figures they have listed aren't near the level of beer or cigarettes.

The legislation requires all revenue generated by the $50-per-ounce fee to be used for drug education and rehabilitation programs. The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price.

More importantly:

Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect because legalization would lead to falling prices, the board said.

[CU Tiger]

And to answer your question seriously...yes, of course tobacco would be cheaper...and maybe on alcohol. Why would you think otherwise?

If you play out the hypothetical, tobacco may or may not be cheaper to grow and hide from the government in the US...but it would of course be elsewhere in the world.

This is a tangent point here...but I dont see how you think the price of cigarettes would, what? Triple to equal the tax on it? And that doesnt even count the behind the scenes regulation costs that are built into the price of the cigarettes.

I just cant comprehend what our are gripping on.
If it were legal, jimbob would not be running distribution, major economic players would be running corporations dedicated t growing the strongest kind bud, at the cheapest price and the lowest growth cycle. It is pure idiocy if you think the average current marijuana grower has access and training to maximize profit and reduce expense that corporate America does....unless you know CPAs, Agronomists, and Lawyers all conglomerating to districute weed today.

Then when you eliminate Millions in smuggling and arming costs the small tax becomes humerous....

[SteveMax58]

Then when you eliminate Millions in smuggling and arming costs the small tax becomes humerous....

I think you may be lumping legalization in the US in with legalization in only California.

I'm really going to just leave that comment unrefined and back off this topic...it is clearly me not getting something overly simple and being disagreeable.

[flere-imsaho]

And you can brew beer in your home or make wine. But I doubt you could sell it legally.

Sure you can. You just have to comply with local Health & Safety regulations, which is generally where the whole financial motive falls apart.


I honestly don't care that much either way if it were legalized. I don't consider it overly harmful, in and of itself, but do question whether it is of any real benefit beyond the medicianl uses and whether it leads to a slippery slope. Not a doctor here...so my opnion is pretty non-scientific.

There's a considerable amount of scientific evidence to show real benefits for medicinal usage. These studies are easily found via Google. As with any drug, marijuana is better used for some (medical) purposes than others.

Evidence from the Netherlands found that since marijuana was legalized the average age of the user population for "harder" drugs started, and continued to, rise, which means that marijuana was not, in general, being used as a "gateway" drug once it was legalized. Again, there's plenty of information on this via Google since the Dutch "experiment" is quite old now.

My single best qualification is not being a California budget estimator.

California's financial troubles have little to do with their accountants and pretty much everything to do with some exceptionally poor decisions made by the populace and politicians regarding a) how taxes can be levied and b) how spending bills can be passed. This is well known, well understood, and agreed upon by all sides of the debate in California (and amongst outsiders).

[flere-imsaho]

If it were legal, jimbob would not be running distribution, major economic players would be running corporations dedicated t growing the strongest kind bud, at the cheapest price and the lowest growth cycle. It is pure idiocy if you think the average current marijuana grower has access and training to maximize profit and reduce expense that corporate America does....unless you know CPAs, Agronomists, and Lawyers all conglomerating to districute weed today.

I don't tend to agree with CU Tiger very much (in "political" discussions), but he's right on the money here. I'll bet good money that companies such as Phillip Morris already have implementation plans ready to go should marijuana be legalized.

[molson]

Very few smokers will grow their own. Come on. Especially if you want something good.



But if it was legal, you know government would screw things up and put restrictive limits on how strong it can be. There would be a ton of regulation and expense and the product wouldn't be that great.

If you want the good stuff, you'll still need to talk to your buddy with the heating lamps.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Eh, I can buy beer with >10% APV with ease.

And also, I was responding to the claim that people would grow their own. There may still be "independent" growers, but it's not like nobody will be buying because they've got their own plant.

[molson]

Eh, I can buy beer with >10% APV with ease.

In some states. Massachusetts though? That's pretty awesome.

[SteveMax58]

California's financial troubles have little to do with their accountants and pretty much everything to do with some exceptionally poor decisions made by the populace and politicians regarding a) how taxes can be levied and b) how spending bills can be passed. This is well known, well understood, and agreed upon by all sides of the debate in California (and amongst outsiders).

Just to clarify...my comment was a joke. While I didn't expect it to be ROFL-funny...I thought it would be obvious in the context in the thread that it was just an opportunistic smartass remark. Apparently it wasn't.

[Schmidty]

Please. What about second hand cigarette smoke? What about dads fridge full of beer that he doesnt miss one or two from? that is a weak argument.

Cigarette smoke doesn't get you high, and the parents aren't forcing the beer down their kid's throats, regardless of the conscious decision for the kid to steal the beer. So I think it is a very valid argument.

edit: I'm not even against legalization. I just think it should be responsible legalization.

[dawgfan]

And to answer your question seriously...yes, of course tobacco would be cheaper...and maybe on alcohol. Why would you think otherwise?

If you play out the hypothetical, tobacco may or may not be cheaper to grow and hide from the government in the US...but it would of course be elsewhere in the world.

This is a tangent point here...but I dont see how you think the price of cigarettes would, what? Triple to equal the tax on it? And that doesnt even count the behind the scenes regulation costs that are built into the price of the cigarettes.
Why would I think that? Because if it's illegal, the cost to grow and distribute to the end user becomes far higher to account for the fact you have to evade the law the entire way through the process.

Honestly, this concept is so simple it boggles my mind that you don't seem to comprehend it.

[thesloppy]

Honestly, this concept is so simple it boggles my mind that you don't seem to comprehend it.

Seriously. Both of the marijuana threads have somehow devolved into arguments about whether Americans (and stoned Americans in particular) would be willing to pay for convenience, and contentions that making something legal to produce and distribute will somehow make it more expensive. How are these even debatable points?

There are PLENTY of valid questions about the legalization of marijuana, but these aren't them. It's like having a discussion about football that devolves into a two-day argument about why the ball isn't round. A) It isn't. B) Who cares?

[dawgfan]

Seriously. Both of the marijuana threads have somehow devolved into arguments about whether Americans (and stoned Americans in particular) would be willing to pay for convenience, and contentions that making something legal to produce and distribute will somehow make it more expensive. How are these even debatable points?
Well, to be fair his argument seems to be more that any cost savings in the production and distribution of marijuana being legal would be more than offset by government regulation and taxation. I still think he's nuts, but I don't think he's actually arguing that the pre-tax cost of marijuana would go up if it were legalized.

[SteveMax58]

Well, to be fair his argument seems to be more that any cost savings in the production and distribution of marijuana being legal would be more than offset by government regulation and taxation. I still think he's nuts, but I don't think he's actually arguing that the pre-tax cost of marijuana would go up if it were legalized.

This is what I'm saying could be the case. I've said it earlier, and I'll say it again...I also could be wrong in the end. Clearly you and the others in this thread think I am...I get it.

thesloppy mentioned the initial tax base is anticipated to be 10% (if I got it right)...I'm contending that it doesnt stay there...not even close. Probably not as high as cigarettes (IMHO), but closer to cigs than to nearly anything else I can think of offhand.

Others have contended that every farmer would be growing pot and the price would be lowballed beyond any taxation's(initially or in the future) impact. I would say that's a good point but point out that legalizing pot in California doesnt mean it's legal to grow it commercially anywhere you want...nor does it mean you could grow it in Kentucky, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. So, there are potential issues with the amount of "appropriate" land to grow on...and I'd bet pot plants have a pretty high NIMBY factor. Again...since I have to clarify my precise point moreso than everybody else here...that doesn't mean it isn't possible to make a business out of it, nor does it mean you cant make it cheaper...it's just another point of contention that the "devil is in the details" on it like everything and it is worth exploring. But naturally, I have to use twice as many words to caveat points beyond the point of normal dialoque.

Others have responded and told me there are studies searchable thru google to further educate me on my anti-medicinal stance...WTF are you talking about? I questioned the benefits BEYOND MEDICINAL MJ. Seriously...it seems like some people just want to debate the point they want to debate...no matter what the actual discussion was. The other part about the slippery slope was answered already...I was referring to the slippery slope of future legalizing of other banned substances...not making the gateway drug argument...and even conceded I wasnt sold on it myself.

[dawgfan]

Others have contended that every farmer would be growing pot and the price would be lowballed beyond any taxation's(initially or in the future) impact. I would say that's a good point but point out that legalizing pot in California doesnt mean it's legal to grow it commercially anywhere you want...nor does it mean you could grow it in Kentucky, or anywhere else in the US for that matter. So, there are potential issues with the amount of "appropriate" land to grow on...and I'd bet pot plants have a pretty high NIMBY factor. Again...since I have to clarify my precise point moreso than everybody else here...that doesn't mean it isn't possible to make a business out of it, nor does it mean you cant make it cheaper...it's just another point of contention that the "devil is in the details" on it like everything and it is worth exploring. But naturally, I have to use twice as many words to caveat points beyond the point of normal dialoque.
If we're limiting the argument to California, that does indeed limit the extent to which legalization changes the dynamics of the economic impact. But I would remind you that California is a huge state with a lot of farmland and a significant economy.

That said, I think the points that lungs brings up about farmers switching crops to marijuana are valid, and I think the NIMBY factor is quite a bit less when talking about commercial farm land. It's one thing when Joe Blow in a suburban neighborhood grows marijuana in his large backyard; it's another when it's hundreds of acres of farmland.

As for taxation rates, I think it's possible that many years down the road after marijuana is legalized you might see tax rates creeping ever upward, but initially I'd be highly skeptical that tax rates would be so significant as to render legal pot more expensive than current illegal pot. Government can be stupid a lot of the time, but I don't think they'd blow it so completely as to provide a major incentive for illegal cultivation and distribution of pot to continue.

I'm certainly not going to argue that the $1.4B figure from that California study is accurate, but I do think it's fair to say that the tax revenue generated from legal marijuana would be significant, as would the reduction in cost to the government in regulating and enforcing distribution vs. the current costs of fighting drug trafficking and prosecution and incarceration costs of marijuana related crimes.

Perhaps there would be added costs to the government in other ways from legalizing marijuana, and I'd like to see some thoughtful analysis and speculation of such.

[SteveMax58]

If we're limiting the argument to California, that does indeed limit the extent to which legalization changes the dynamics of the economic impact. But I would remind you that California is a huge state with a lot of farmland and a significant economy.

That said, I think the points that lungs brings up about farmers switching crops to marijuana are valid, and I think the NIMBY factor is quite a bit less when talking about commercial farm land. It's one thing when Joe Blow in a suburban neighborhood grows marijuana in his large backyard; it's another when it's hundreds of acres of farmland.

Exactly on the point of switching to marijuana...consider the amount of "other" plants that are abandoned to meet this demand. We've seen similar moves from wheat and soybeans to cashcrops in the past like in the case of ethanol (corn) demand. How do you even begin to quantify this type of cost to the state/country...even if limited to California.

I would be curious to hear lungs' thoughts as I believe he is a farmer.



As for taxation rates, I think it's possible that many years down the road after marijuana is legalized you might see tax rates creeping ever upward, but initially I'd be highly skeptical that tax rates would be so significant as to render legal pot more expensive than current illegal pot. Government can be stupid a lot of the time, but I don't think they'd blow it so completely as to provide a major incentive for illegal cultivation and distribution of pot to continue.


This would be the best way to introduce taxation, no doubt. But I suspect it wouldn't have nearly the ramp up time that cigarettes took to get to 3-4 times the actual cost of the product(depending on the state).


I'm certainly not going to argue that the $1.4B figure from that California study is accurate, but I do think it's fair to say that the tax revenue generated from legal marijuana would be significant, as would the reduction in cost to the government in regulating and enforcing distribution vs. the current costs of fighting drug trafficking and prosecution and incarceration costs of marijuana related crimes.

I concede it's a plausible number from anything I've ever read (~$14B business in Ca, so 10% is $1.4B)...and California has the overall wealth to support increased prices to a degree...but I just don't know if the government can help themselves when they start adding up the # of constituents they can make happy and look like a hero by squeezing just a little more from the new cashcow every year. They may have this restraint initially...but it's the cynic in me that thinks the worst of them. I might be overly cynical.


Perhaps there would be added costs to the government in other ways from legalizing marijuana, and I'd like to see some thoughtful analysis and speculation of such.

I think the potential exodus from food crops to mj is a potential fallout. This is why I suspect the "appropriated" land for growing commercially becomes trickier than it appears initially.

And I havent seen anything on this point...but I would wonder if current dispensaries would even be allowed to use the same facilities, land, etc. for commercial mj due to the (likelihood) of differences in tax burden/breaks.

[dawgfan]

I think the potential exodus from food crops to mj is a potential fallout. This is why I suspect the "appropriated" land for growing commercially becomes trickier than it appears initially.
Well, a lot of that depends on how much demand there ultimately is for marijuana if it's legal. The more farmers that switch to marijuana production, the greater the supply of it and the lower the prices they'll get for it as a crop. Things would stabilize after a while as farmers learned exactly what the fair market value of marijuana production would be compared to other crops, as well as whether they possess the right land and know-how to compete in the marketplace.

The issue I have with ethanol bumping out other crops is that it's driven by government subsidy to promote an alternative fuel source that is arguably worse for the environment than petroleum.

[lungs]

It probably wouldn't reach the status of corn, wheat, cotton, etc.. as a cash crop. There is too much care that needs to be taken with the actual plant itself. Most large scale cash crops are the plant, spray, and harvest variety.

One comparison I could possibly see with marijuana is grape vineyards and wineries. It'd be a much more specialized type of farming. Much care needs to be given to grape vines to get a good grape harvest and much care needs to be given to marijuana plants.

You won't see farmers plowing over thousands of acres of corn to plant marijuana. My big caveat is if legalization of marijuana also leads to more hemp production. Then again I'm not so sure the demand for natural fibers like hemp when we have synthetic fibers these days.

[Atocep]

It probably wouldn't reach the status of corn, wheat, cotton, etc.. as a cash crop. There is too much care that needs to be taken with the actual plant itself. Most large scale cash crops are the plant, spray, and harvest variety.

One comparison I could possibly see with marijuana is grape vineyards and wineries. It'd be a much more specialized type of farming. Much care needs to be given to grape vines to get a good grape harvest and much care needs to be given to marijuana plants.

This is a big thing that is overlooked by anyone that thinks people would be willing to just grow their own at home. It takes a lot of work to grow marijuana plants that come out better than the grass that's sitting in my lawnmower bag right now.