Let's Get Rich Off Pot

Off Topic
41

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]lemony2j wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The legal price of an ounce of medium-quality weed in Washington is about $200, maybe a little less. The ILLEGAL price of weed in California for medium-quality weed is a little more than half that. I could go buy an ounce of high-grade weed on the black market right now for the price of weed far less potent AND legal. It’s a rare case of the black market prices being lower than the legit prices.

[/quote]

I’m sorry what? The medium quality legal weed you mentioned is still close to half the price people pay over here
[/quote]

I can go to a dispensary in California and get middle-of-the-road weed for about $200 an ounce. I can get the exact same weed on the black market for about $150. I can go to the same dispensary and get high-octane weed for about $320 an ounce. I can get the same high-octane weed on the black market for about $250 an ounce. Anyone who thinks that legal weed is a viable source of state income is high as shit.

All the people who sell weed do now is simply drop the price of their product below that of their legal competitors. WIth no regulations to deal with and all that costly extra shit legitimate businesses have to go through, dealers will always be able to compete with dispensaries. When it becomes completely legal, they’ll just continue selling it at a price below that of legal dispensaries. There is a market for weed. There is NOT a market for weed that is over-priced, not when there will still be much cheaper avenues to get it.[/quote]

I think a lot of professionals/middle-class family types with kids would and will pay a moderate premium for legal weed vs. buying from a black-market drug dealer. Some people are confortable buying stereo equipment out of the back of the van; many more people prefer paying a premium and go to best buy where the transaction is legal and where there is recourse if they sell you a bad product.

[/quote]

The black market drug dealer will change a bit. If you can buy weed legally then you can possess it legally so just the act of having weed on you is a lower risk. This brings down the black market price and changes the type of people willing to sell it.[/quote]

Exactly. The day they legalize it completely in California is the day I begin growing the maximum amount of weed the law will allow. I don’t even smoke weed anymore, but I know plenty people who still do. Why would they go to a dispensary when they can just buy some quality hydroponically-grown weed for less money and at literally no risk to themselves?

43

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]Pj92x wrote:
taxing weed is like raping baby jesus. Makes the soul weep.[/quote]

I’m very conservative. I believe we should have a small efficient government and the lowest taxes possible. However, taxation of “sin” items is one area I deviate. To keep income tax, property tax, other sales tax and all the other fees and permits and crap we have to pay as low as possible, I say tax the shit out of alcohol, tobacco and weed. I even think the same thing about junk food and would probably come up with a lot of other things if I put my mind to it. Oh, guns. I think we should tax the shit out of gun purchases.[/quote]

Senator On Edge, I served with conservatives. I knew conservatives. Conservatives were friends of mine. Senator, you’re no conservative. [/quote]

HA! If I hadn’t thrown in the gun comment, you wouldn’t have said a thing.

45

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Good lord did anyone see the news where they ran a story how 3 people died of weed overdoses within the first 2 days of legalization in Colorado? Sad thing is I’m sure my parents and grandparents were ignorant enough to believe it…[/quote]

Bullshit… I’ve tried it a few times years back. It can’t be done.

Rob

46

Very good article in the New Yorker about the complications of legalizing weed:

The article fails to mention the good point DBCooper made that most regular users will stop buying from anybody and grow their own. They also fail to mention that while it may not bring in the tax revenue that many expect, on the other hand, there will be huge budget savings from not locking up and prosecuting people for growing and using.

47

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]chobbs wrote:
Good lord did anyone see the news where they ran a story how 3 people died of weed overdoses within the first 2 days of legalization in Colorado? Sad thing is I’m sure my parents and grandparents were ignorant enough to believe it…[/quote]

Bullshit… I’ve tried it a few times years back. It can’t be done.

Rob[/quote]

When I was younger and somewhat dumber we used to get high as all hell at a friends place. One day his mom started coming into the shack we toked up in and scared the hell out of all of us so we bolted in our cars. That’s about the only time on weed I’ve ever been in a situation where I was really being dangerous- I kept thinking everything shiny on the side of the road was a cop and I’d try and steer my car as far away from it as possible.

In reality I was probably only moving over a few inches and only going 3mph but it made me realize that me, on weed, in a car, is a bad idea. The lady at McDonalds hooked me up with extra mcnuggets when I got there eventually though so it ended up being a good idea at the time.

Now, if I were to smoke, I’d probably just sink into my couch and kill some prostitutes in GTA.

I haven’t paid any attention to the legalizing of it. What’s the age limit for it?

48

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Who is Rich? And why does he have to stop using pot?

Is this an e-intervention?[/quote]

haaaaahahaha

49

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Very good article in the New Yorker about the complications of legalizing weed:

The article fails to mention the good point DBCooper made that most regular users will stop buying from anybody and grow their own. They also fail to mention that while it may not bring in the tax revenue that many expect, on the other hand, there will be huge budget savings from not locking up and prosecuting people for growing and using. [/quote]

Actually, they cover the prosecution aspect on the first couple pages.

The fact is, there will need to be just as much, if not MORE, regulation and law enforcement expenditures. The whole tax revenue aspect will never get off the ground if people don’t buy exclusively from these I-502 stores. How do you ensure that? You remove the black market competition. How do you do that? You go after them with police.

The other good point this Kleiman guy makes is that the underage demographic (>21) is a huge part of the current illicit market. Every legalization attempt so far has come with the caveat that anyone under 21 will not be allowed to purchase weed. Well, where are they going to go to get it? They’ll stay right where they are now, in the black market. And that in and of itself could be enough to sustain the black market to the point where it can continue to compete, price-wise, with the legal market.

50

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Very good article in the New Yorker about the complications of legalizing weed:

The article fails to mention the good point DBCooper made that most regular users will stop buying from anybody and grow their own. They also fail to mention that while it may not bring in the tax revenue that many expect, on the other hand, there will be huge budget savings from not locking up and prosecuting people for growing and using. [/quote]

Actually, they cover the prosecution aspect on the first couple pages.

The fact is, there will need to be just as much, if not MORE, regulation and law enforcement expenditures. The whole tax revenue aspect will never get off the ground if people don’t buy exclusively from these I-502 stores. How do you ensure that? You remove the black market competition. How do you do that? You go after them with police.

The other good point this Kleiman guy makes is that the underage demographic (>21) is a huge part of the current illicit market. Every legalization attempt so far has come with the caveat that anyone under 21 will not be allowed to purchase weed. Well, where are they going to go to get it? They’ll stay right where they are now, in the black market. And that in and of itself could be enough to sustain the black market to the point where it can continue to compete, price-wise, with the legal market.[/quote]

ya nobody wants to smoke shitty weed, and most “black market weed” is SHIT, so, most likely,

someone who is 21 will buy it(from store), re-sell it to his dealers, and boom, good & cheap weed for everyone.

51

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Very good article in the New Yorker about the complications of legalizing weed:

The article fails to mention the good point DBCooper made that most regular users will stop buying from anybody and grow their own. They also fail to mention that while it may not bring in the tax revenue that many expect, on the other hand, there will be huge budget savings from not locking up and prosecuting people for growing and using. [/quote]

Actually, they cover the prosecution aspect on the first couple pages.

The fact is, there will need to be just as much, if not MORE, regulation and law enforcement expenditures. The whole tax revenue aspect will never get off the ground if people don’t buy exclusively from these I-502 stores. How do you ensure that? You remove the black market competition. How do you do that? You go after them with police.

The other good point this Kleiman guy makes is that the underage demographic (>21) is a huge part of the current illicit market. Every legalization attempt so far has come with the caveat that anyone under 21 will not be allowed to purchase weed. Well, where are they going to go to get it? They’ll stay right where they are now, in the black market. And that in and of itself could be enough to sustain the black market to the point where it can continue to compete, price-wise, with the legal market.[/quote]

ya nobody wants to smoke shitty weed, and most “black market weed” is SHIT, so, most likely,

someone who is 21 will buy it(from store), re-sell it to his dealers, and boom, good & cheap weed for everyone. [/quote]

No, that will not happen. It would be highly illegal under any of these legalization scenarios to turn around and sell legal weed in the manner you suggest. Anyone who does so would naturally have to mark the price way up to account for what would be a legitimate risk. The weed will already most likely be more expensive than black market weed. By the time the person buys it in large quantities, marks it up, and then sells it to the under-21 crowd, it will be drastically more expensive than black market weed. While illicit weed is generally not as high-quality as legal weed is, there has still been a huge market for it nonetheless. So there is zero incentive for anyone to buy a product that could end up twice as high as the alternative that they have been smoking for years already.

And the reduced law enforcement expenditures would naturally cease to exist since policing scenarios like the one you mention would be imperative if the state wanted to make any money at all on tax revenues.

I’ve been saying for years on this site that legalization is not the fiscal panacea that many think it will be. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of the market, familiarity with the weed market in particular, a grasp of how businesses respond to competition (including the business that illegal dealers represent), along with the concept of diversion (in this case, cheap, legal weed from Washington being infused into surrounding states’ black markets) understands that this is a bad idea if it is being done out of a desire for monetary gain.

Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?

52

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I’ve been saying for years on this site that legalization is not the fiscal panacea that many think it will be. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of the market, familiarity with the weed market in particular, a grasp of how businesses respond to competition (including the business that illegal dealers represent), along with the concept of diversion (in this case, cheap, legal weed from Washington being infused into surrounding states’ black markets) understands that this is a bad idea if it is being done out of a desire for monetary gain.

[/quote]

Great post, and particularly this section.

53

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Very good article in the New Yorker about the complications of legalizing weed:

The article fails to mention the good point DBCooper made that most regular users will stop buying from anybody and grow their own. They also fail to mention that while it may not bring in the tax revenue that many expect, on the other hand, there will be huge budget savings from not locking up and prosecuting people for growing and using. [/quote]

Actually, they cover the prosecution aspect on the first couple pages.

The fact is, there will need to be just as much, if not MORE, regulation and law enforcement expenditures. The whole tax revenue aspect will never get off the ground if people don’t buy exclusively from these I-502 stores. How do you ensure that? You remove the black market competition. How do you do that? You go after them with police.

The other good point this Kleiman guy makes is that the underage demographic (>21) is a huge part of the current illicit market. Every legalization attempt so far has come with the caveat that anyone under 21 will not be allowed to purchase weed. Well, where are they going to go to get it? They’ll stay right where they are now, in the black market. And that in and of itself could be enough to sustain the black market to the point where it can continue to compete, price-wise, with the legal market.[/quote]

ya nobody wants to smoke shitty weed, and most “black market weed” is SHIT, so, most likely,

someone who is 21 will buy it(from store), re-sell it to his dealers, and boom, good & cheap weed for everyone. [/quote]

While you’re right that nobody WANTS to smoke shitty weed, the fact is that most people DO and will continue to do so.

Think about it. What’s the best musician/band in music today? NIN, without a doubt. Does Trent Reznor outsell Justin Bieber? Not even close. What’s the best brewery in the country today? I would argue Sierra Nevada, but I’m biased. Regardless, the best breweries aren’t doing anywhere CLOSE to the business that Budweiser does. They probably spill more of that pisswater than most microbreweries bottle.

While there is a demand for high-quality shit, the demand for high quantity is even larger. And when we are discussing this in terms of something with the potential for increased tolerance and addiction, there is an even larger demand for more, no matter what the quality.

54

DB,

What you say makes sense, in terms of risk, but you are either a) neglecting room for stupidity b) omitting desperation which comes from needing/making money.

When was the last time you bought weed?(in the “black market”)?

I can tell you from experience that the way I described it, if not for long-term, is definitely happening right now, in the short-term.

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

I’ve been saying for years on this site that legalization is not the fiscal panacea that many think it will be. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics of the market, familiarity with the weed market in particular, a grasp of how businesses respond to competition (including the business that illegal dealers represent), along with the concept of diversion (in this case, cheap, legal weed from Washington being infused into surrounding states’ black markets) understands that this is a bad idea if it is being done out of a desire for monetary gain.

[/quote]

Great post, and particularly this section. [/quote]

Pot smokers don’t give a shit if the state makes any money, and if they try and tax the shit out of it they will probably price themselves out of a lot of revenue for many of DB’s reasons. I think the states will, in fact, make some money, but not like its a Casino industry. The bottom line is its a weed that’s easy to grow and isn’t a real public health threat and the big issue is it shouldn’t be criminalized or overly regulated. The pot lobby I’m sure over-sold the revenue aspect, but whatever, that’s politics. In my book, if the state makes any money that is more than they are actually entitled to.

56

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB

57

[quote]Claudan wrote:
DB,

What you say makes sense, in terms of risk, but you are either a) neglecting room for stupidity b) omitting desperation which comes from needing/making money.

When was the last time you bought weed?(in the “black market”)?

I can tell you from experience that the way I described it, if not for long-term, is definitely happening right now, in the short-term.
[/quote]

I am more than familiar with the inner workings of the illicit marijuana market. And that’s all I have to say about that.

I don’t understand points A or B. Stupidity on the part of whom? Desperation regarding what?

I’m sure that some people right now are going into legal dispensaries and buying weed that they then turn around and sell to minors or non-card holders. That isn’t a business model destined for success. There’s no money in that sort of a business model. It really isn’t that hard to grow high-quality marijuana at all. Anyone with a 1000w light, a firm grasp of pH levels, access to some decent soil and chemicals, and a bit of a green thumb can grow their own weed with relative ease. I can’t imagine the profit anyone makes off of redistributing legal weed in the manner you describe is substantial at all. It certainly isn’t sustainable.

58

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB
[/quote]

It certainly DOES give a shit about moral obligations. That is why it isn’t legal in Washington to advertise near schools or target minorities with advertisements.

And as far as political obligations, they ALL have a political obligation…to themselves. The first politician who outright advocates the use of marijuana is going to be the last one to do so. When was the last time you heard a politician with a large brewery in his district publicly advocate alcoholism. And I say alcoholism because it is THAT level of drinking that sustains the market for booze. It isn’t the guy who drinks a couple of high-quality microbrews every other night who is driving that market. It’s the degenerate who stumbles down to the liquor store 7 days a week and buys two 12-packs of Bud Light who drives the market. It will be the same with marijuana.

60

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Claudan wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Besides, like the article mentions, it’s no secret amongst the alcohol industry types that their profits hinge primarily on alcoholics and not the occasional drinker. The same applies to weed. Is the state ready to get into a business that they have the moral and political obligation to encourage people NOT to become involved in? Is the state ready to try and make money off a product that they have the moral and political obligation to discourage people from using? Is that anything OTHER than contrary to the most basic principles of business management and finance?[/quote]

The state doesn’t give two shits about moral or political obligations.

The state gives only a fuck about money. If we are having “moral or political” dilemmas because of this new weed business, then it’s so incredibly hypocritical that I actually I’m not even out-raged. I expect hypocrisy on every turn when it comes ‘Life’. Damn DB I would love to discuss this further and more in-depth but my brain cannot handle a full work-load and this interesting discussion at the same time. BRB
[/quote]

It certainly DOES give a shit about moral obligations. That is why it isn’t legal in Washington to advertise near schools or target minorities with advertisements.
[/quote]

You sound like an Idealist and I like that.

Honestly though, Do they give a shit about these obligations for moral reasons or for voting reasons? I’m sorry, I might be overly-pessimistic to your idealism, but I don’t trust politicians for shit.

Not because politicians are inherently bad people, but because the ‘system’ eventually bends them that way.

The only reason they are not advertising near schools or target minorities is because it would be a death sentence(public opinions), but believe you me, IF THERE WAS (enough)FINANCIAL MOTIVATION involved in fighting this specific point, of advertising near schools, I truly believe politics would’ve found a way to advertise near school zones as well.