Cannabis commercialization question

[WildCat]

I'll bet that taxes on it will be very high, thus supporting a smaller black market. Vice taxes are becoming more and more popular, and tobacco is already taxed out the wazoo.

The tobacco black market is alive and well and lucrative.

Will the American Indian reservations have the same advantages with mj that they have with tobacco?

Nah, it will just spur people to grow their own.

 

[DreadNiK]

Oh, I'm sure there'd be more cultivars developed, but that's already the case. But nothing radically different. Just look at all the types of Anaheim peppers, but the differences between them aren't all that great.

With marijuana, there's still be 3 main types - indica, sativa, and hybrids of those.


Not all ag processes can be automated, and buds don't fall off the plant when ripe if shaken. And I don't see anyone investing the money to automate harvesting a crop that needs just 1,500 acres to meet the demand of the entire country. That's 3 average-sized farms.


The price would definitely come down faster than freefall speed.


I think that whatever commercial growers there are will be quite small, there just isn't enough market to attract large corporations.

Although, I reckon there would be a substantial increase in demand if it was legalised. I think there are a lot of people on the margin where they are happy to have one main legal intoxicant (alcohol) but if there was another introduced such as cannabis you'd probably see it take some of the legal intoxicant market share from alcohol, even in the long term.

I also think that while the total sales revenues would drop if it were to be legalised (due to the increased demand still failing to compensate from the massive drop in price), you don't lose anything in the overall economy because you've freed up those funds to be used to buy other things.

 

[Dr. Keith]

you don't lose anything in the overall economy because you've freed up those funds to be used to buy other things.

So if there is ever a federal legalization we all need to buy stock in Taco Bell?

 

[GeeMack]

Although, I reckon there would be a substantial increase in demand if it was legalised. I think there are a lot of people on the margin where they are happy to have one main legal intoxicant (alcohol) but if there was another introduced such as cannabis you'd probably see it take some of the legal intoxicant market share from alcohol, even in the long term.

Given the fact that marijuana is quite freely available, it seems likely that most people who might want to use it already are. Of course there are those who might like to smoke it but avoid it because they risk losing employment if it shows up in drug tests. That might change if the legal and social stigma were reduced/removed. And there are surely some who are simply law abiding, and prohibition is the only thing keeping them from using it.

Since over 100 million Americans over 12 years old have tried it, 41% of the population in that age group, obviously it isn't difficult to obtain. These people are already exposed to the culture and choosing to participate or not for various reasons. It seems a safe bet that there would be an increase in the number of users and/or the amount used after prohibition, but a "substantial" increase? Maybe not so much.

I also think that while the total sales revenues would drop if it were to be legalised (due to the increased demand still failing to compensate from the massive drop in price), you don't lose anything in the overall economy because you've freed up those funds to be used to buy other things.

That's a valid point. If they're spending a total of X dollars on marijuana now, they certainly will be spending the difference on something else when marijuana becomes much less expensive. Maybe additional recreational pastimes. Maybe they'll move to slightly more expensive apartments or buy nicer stereos or eat more expensive food. That money will still exist and it will still be moving around.

Obviously more money being spent in the legal economy, as opposed to the black market, will generate sales tax on the things people buy with it and income tax on the profit people make from those sales. And although that additional tax-flow probably won't be some kind of panacea that lets us suddenly afford new roads and better schools, and it won't cause a decrease in existing taxes or reduce deficits, it will increase the gross revenue, so it can't hurt.

 

[DreadNiK]

Given the fact that marijuana is quite freely available, it seems likely that most people who might want to use it already are. Of course there are those who might like to smoke it but avoid it because they risk losing employment if it shows up in drug tests. That might change if the legal and social stigma were reduced/removed. And there are surely some who are simply law abiding, and prohibition is the only thing keeping them from using it.

I'm thinking also that I know a lot of people who have and will smoke it, but that there is a big difference between that (i.e. offered it for free at a party once in a while) and the option of spending your friday or saturday night publicly socialising stoned rather than drunk (and in general one or the other since for most people they mix quite badly) you might see a reasonable drop in alcohol consumption, as those people, as I say who currently only have one choice of intoxicant, that they are content with, suddenly offered a different option on their friday/saturday night first of all try out the new option, and then those that like it more switch, those that are indifferent (as many are) alternate and some go back to the booze it would swing back a little.

Also, I think it is a bit of a myth that weed is so 'easily available'. Generally you need contacts (or your own private property to grow on) and you need to maintain those contacts. At least round here. I mean I don't think many of my friends would be easily able to acquire a reliable and fairly priced (??) supply all that easily, because why bother if you enjoy being drunk nearly as much or more but also enjoy variety, there's just too much hassle involved? I really am thinking more and more that the reality is that a lot of people are sitting on this margin where its illegal status is the main factor that balances the cost/benefit equation of using it, not least because it artificially affects a lot of the other factors involved, such as price, such as ease of availability, such as social stigma, such as convenience (i.e. pubs vs privacy)

Fortunately the argument that 'we don't want more people using it' is invalid, especially if more people using it means less people using alcohol.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Not all ag processes can be automated, and buds don't fall off the plant when ripe if shaken. And I don't see anyone investing the money to automate harvesting a crop that needs just 1,500 acres to meet the demand of the entire country. That's 3 average-sized farms.

I think you are missing the big picture that I'm looking at, which is that making it legal will make it cheaper to produce. First off, the cost right now includes the risk factor, which means people are paying for somebody to take the risk of growing it. When you eliminate that, the price will go down.

Beyond that there is the actual cost of production. When you move it into the open and people with the equipment take a crack at it, they will produce more product with less effort because of the economy of scale. They already have tractors, so harvesting a few acres by hand and dumping it on the back of a tractor is far more efficient than a bunch of guys growing it in the back yard. Irrigation systems are already in place. There are tilling machines and automated planters that could be used/adapted for pot. The soil is already there, so you're buying bags of potting soil and pots from Home Depot.

Beyond that there are other types of equipment they have which could possibly be adapted. I'm no expert in agriculture, but it seems to me that if you have a harvester for wheat, maybe you can figure a way to use it for pot. Even if it's not 100% efficient, it only needs to be more efficient in dollars and cents compared to manual labor. Hell, maybe they cut it mechanically, let it dry in the sun for a bit, then use a hay baler type thing to gather it up. Again, it only needs to be more cost effective than manual labor (and more profitable than other crops).

The price would definitely come down faster than freefall speed.

That's all I'm saying.

I think that whatever commercial growers there are will be quite small, there just isn't enough market to attract large corporations.

Large corporations work with small commercial growers all the time. You're ignoring things like the distribution and packaging channels. If 15M people in the USA regularly use the stuff and pay $10-$20 per gram now, that's a worthwhile market. I'd be very surprised if the tobacco companies did not take over the market. After all, the distribution channels will be virtually the same. Packaging loose tobacco will be similar, and I'm sure there are other similarities in production.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

So if there is ever a federal legalization we all need to buy stock in Taco Bell?

The way he said that was kind of strange, but he's right.

And it's a good thing. If the processes of production become more efficient and transparent and competitive, (less barriers to entry in the market of marijuana) and the price goes down, we will all have more money to invest in, yes, Taco Bell, or anything that you want.

We would be a more productive economy by "x" amount.

That's what this is all about. It's about the FACT that marijuana being illegal makes the production and sale of marijuana less efficient (more costly), which makes the price of marijuana go up.

This means the marijuana market is currently less productive than it could be, were it legal.

 

[Thomas]

And this will lead to a black market how exactly?

Or if that is not what you are arguing, what are you saying is the implication of this fact?

Who said it would lead to a black market? I'm just countering WindCat's notion, that a single field of hemp will be enough to cover USA's market.. He forgets about hydroponics and general indoor controlled enviroment cultivation which heals some different and stronger properties.

I will explain how high grade skunk can lead to a black market later in this post.

It seems to me that Thomas is just arguing that he has better dope than everyone else.

You know what is being argued.. Dishonest much?

Why yes, when the crops get harvested there's plenty to go around cheap to free. Tomatoes for everyone where I live. Marijuana, too, if you're in the right circles. I get free tomatoes during a couple months every year, and turn down many offers for more. I turn down offers for free marijuana fairly often, too, excellent quality, grown outdoors within 50 miles of where I live. When prohibition ends, marijuana will be just as inexpensive and just as readily available as any other produce grown in backyard gardens.

It seems that not only do I come fram a different timezone, but also a different age

And the point still is, when prohibition ends, there will be no practical way a black market in marijuana can exist. Whatever the demand for quality, quantity, or variety, it will likely be effectively met by commercial operations. If for any reason the commercial producers can't offer it at an attractive price, people will grow their own. And just like beer and wine, some people will anyway.

What about taxfree high grade skunk made in controlled enviroments?

Why on earth are you comparing skunk with "field weed" then?

Because that field of yours won't be enough to cover the n. american market, and because high grade skunk will still hold an opening for a black market as long as it can be made taxfree.

90+% of it is still genetics.

Then plant one on the moon and get your 90% bud.

Already answered. Because indoor plants can be tended to, while outdoor plants cannot be tended to without increasing your risk of getting caught. How well would your indoor marijuana do if you just threw some seeds in a pot, locked them in your grow room, and didn't check them until 3 or 4 months later?

Well, as long as you admit that controlled enviroment skunk is better than hemp, then you also admit that there will be a market for it. Rendering your field inadequate. Making a market for what people won't be able to do themselves.. i.e. making controlled enviroment skunk.

Says the guys who didn't see the answer to the above question, and demanded it be answered again.


And let me guess, each one says their bud is the bestest and no way could anyone else grow stuff like theirs?

I guess the marketing does work on those susceptible to it!

And what about the fact that your super weed is half price down the road, to that of quality weed?

Hey, I have lots of supermarkets in my neighborhood, does this make me an expert on raising beef and dairy cattle? Growing pineapples and mangos? How does that work?

It's simple, who would you rather listen to concerning pinapples and mangos, the guy who lives next to a pineapple and mango specialized supermarket and has done so for decades, or the redneck who has grown a few in his backyard because any fool can drop a seed in some soil?

I live in the city and I give away lots of tomatoes and peppers from my garden, as well as grape jelly from my vines. Pretty much everyone on my block has a garden, it's one of those rare ones where the back yards all face south and get sun all day long.

It's hippie fantasy land!

Heh, the city where everyone has a garden. Sounds more like the suburbs to me, but who cares.. It's all good.. The case in topic here is that legalization of weed in the western world would spark some economic growth for sure. Number one crop in n. california, should speak for itself.

There will be some exchange amongst those who likes to smoke it in the countryside, and there will be some buying primo products off huge companies. The govt will probably tax it far into hell, as has already been mentioned with cigarettes, so there will be an underground market for taxfree marijuana. And that's about it wrt. what we've talked about here.

 

[GeeMack]

Who said it would lead to a black market? I'm just countering WindCat's notion, that a single field of hemp will be enough to cover USA's market.. He forgets about hydroponics and general indoor controlled enviroment cultivation which heals some different and stronger properties.

Wildcat's position seems to be that relatively few acres of crop will be able to provide enough marijuana to meet the demand, not that it will literally be a single field or farm. And he clearly hasn't forgotten about hydroponics and/or controlled environments. He's just saying you're wrong to claim that there's only one way to produce excellent quality marijuana.

You know what is being argued.. Dishonest much?

It just seems that you're making a silly and irrelevant argument I've heard dozens of times from dozens of dopeheads. It really does sound like you're arguing that nobody else's dope is better than yours. Nothing dishonest about me saying so.

It seems that not only do I come fram a different timezone, but also a different age

Or maybe my experience encompasses a very broad span of time and cultural change and I include that experience in my consideration. I'm not some Beavis and Butt-Head doper who lives next door to a pot store.

What about taxfree high grade skunk made in controlled enviroments?

Because that field of yours won't be enough to cover the n. american market, and because high grade skunk will still hold an opening for a black market as long as it can be made taxfree.

Bootleggers aren't going to give marijuana away. The purpose of a black market is to make a profit. There isn't a way for someone else to grow marijuana by some particular method and sell it to me cheaper than I can grow it myself by that particular method. Certainly not in the small quantities necessary to meet the demand.

Then plant one on the moon and get your 90% bud.

Several times you've incorrectly claimed that other people's arguments were strawmen. Now that's a strawman.

Well, as long as you admit that controlled enviroment skunk is better than hemp, then you also admit that there will be a market for it. Rendering your field inadequate. Making a market for what people won't be able to do themselves.. i.e. making controlled enviroment skunk.

There is no reason people won't be able to grow controlled environment skunk if that's what they want. They'll either have to pay their own increased electricity bill or pay that same amount to the bootlegger for his electricity bill, plus pay the bootlegger his profit. Clearly you're leaving out important factors in assembling your argument, but I can't really figure out if your being neglectful, willfully ignorant, or dishonest.

And what about the fact that your super weed is half price down the road, to that of quality weed?

It's simple, who would you rather listen to concerning pinapples and mangos, the guy who lives next to a pineapple and mango specialized supermarket and has done so for decades, or the redneck who has grown a few in his backyard because any fool can drop a seed in some soil?

You mean ask a guy who has watched people go in an out of a store or ask a guy who has actually grown the stuff? Really?

Heh, the city where everyone has a garden. Sounds more like the suburbs to me, but who cares.. It's all good.. The case in topic here is that legalization of weed in the western world would spark some economic growth for sure. Number one crop in n. california, should speak for itself.

Marijuana is in the top three crops in over half of North America. That's cash crops, measured by money not by acreage, pounds, or bushels. And the only reason for that is prohibition. When prohibition ends that will no longer be the case. Marijuana will be as cheap as parsley, sage, rosemary, or thyme.

There will be some exchange amongst those who likes to smoke it in the countryside, and there will be some buying primo products off huge companies. The govt will probably tax it far into hell, as has already been mentioned with cigarettes, so there will be an underground market for taxfree marijuana. And that's about it wrt. what we've talked about here.

And one more time, if it costs me $X.00 to grow the marijuana I want, it will cost the black marketeer $X.00 to grow it. The difference is if I buy it from him it will cost me $X.00 plus his profit. Not a very good business model for him when you consider the competition.

I will explain how high grade skunk can lead to a black market later in this post.

Failed.

 

[Thomas]

Wildcat's position seems to be that relatively few acres of crop will be able to provide enough marijuana to meet the demand, not that it will literally be a single field or farm. And he clearly hasn't forgotten about hydroponics and/or controlled environments. He's just saying you're wrong to claim that there's only one way to produce excellent quality marijuana.

No, he says his field is enough. And it isn't.

It just seems that you're making a silly and irrelevant argument I've heard dozens of times from dozens of dopeheads. It really does sound like you're arguing that nobody else's dope is better than yours. Nothing dishonest about me saying so.

Wrong, it has been tested thoroughly for ages, hemp is not on par with skunk. And I think you're the one who's busy claiming your dope is so good that none else is needed, yea? Good.

Or maybe my experience encompasses a very broad span of time and cultural change and I include that experience in my consideration. I'm not some Beavis and Butt-Head doper who lives next door to a pot store.

I smoke on rare occassions if I do, thank you very much. See, it seems to be the trend that fewer people smoke it, the more legal it is. Fewer youngsters smoke it in Holland than in Denmark e.g..

Beavis and Butthead? Your level is evident enough.

Bootleggers aren't going to give marijuana away. The purpose of a black market is to make a profit. There isn't a way for someone else to grow marijuana by some particular method and sell it to me cheaper than I can grow it myself by that particular method. Certainly not in the small quantities necessary to meet the demand.

Yes, it's quite evident that you don't know anything about hydro/indoor cultivation or what quality people will ask for in the future. As well as what the market for civilized people calls for.

Several times you've incorrectly claimed that other people's arguments were strawmen. Now that's a strawman.

Not a strawman, a clear exaggeration, to underline the point: The enviroment matters. I didn't expect him to go to the moon you see.

There is no reason people won't be able to grow controlled environment skunk if that's what they want. They'll either have to pay their own increased electricity bill or pay that same amount to the bootlegger for his electricity bill, plus pay the bootlegger his profit. Clearly you're leaving out important factors in assembling your argument, but I can't really figure out if your being neglectful, willfully ignorant, or dishonest.

See, you don't know how much the electric bill would be increased with.

You mean ask a guy who has watched people go in an out of a store or ask a guy who has actually grown the stuff? Really?

When it comes to judging the quality of variants, for sure.. Who has the more knowledge, the one with access to hundreds of variants, or the one with access to a few? Hard to answer isn't it?

Marijuana is in the top three crops in over half of North America. That's cash crops, measured by money not by acreage, pounds, or bushels. And the only reason for that is prohibition. When prohibition ends that will no longer be the case. Marijuana will be as cheap as parsley, sage, rosemary, or thyme.

Yes, because power will be free, as well as fertilizer, humidity control gear, lamps, thermostats etc etc - just like tomatoes.

And one more time, if it costs me $X.00 to grow the marijuana I want, it will cost the black marketeer $X.00 to grow it. The difference is if I buy it from him it will cost me $X.00 plus his profit. Not a very good business model for him when you consider the competition.

Not if you haven't got a clue about how expensive it is to make hydro.

Failed.

Yea, totally, because there will be no market for taxfree marijuana if the govt. imposes extreme taxes on it

 

[DreadNiK]

No, he says his field is enough. And it isn't.
Wrong, it has been tested thoroughly for ages, hemp is not on par with skunk. And I think you're the one who's busy claiming your dope is so good that none else is needed, yea? Good.
I smoke on rare occassions if I do, thank you very much. See, it seems to be the trend that fewer people smoke it, the more legal it is. Fewer youngsters smoke it in Holland than in Denmark e.g..

Beavis and Butthead? Your level is evident enough.
Yes, it's quite evident that you don't know anything about hydro/indoor cultivation or what quality people will ask for in the future. As well as what the market for civilized people calls for.
Not a strawman, a clear exaggeration, to underline the point: The enviroment matters. I didn't expect him to go to the moon you see.
See, you don't know how much the electric bill would be increased with.
When it comes to judging the quality of variants, for sure.. Who has the more knowledge, the one with access to hundreds of variants, or the one with access to a few? Hard to answer isn't it?

Yes, because power will be free, as well as fertilizer, humidity control gear, lamps, thermostats etc etc - just like tomatoes.
Not if you haven't got a clue about how expensive it is to make hydro.
Yea, totally, because there will be no market for taxfree marijuana if the govt. imposes extreme taxes on it

Firstly - who says the govt will impose an extreme tax upon it? What if they legalise say a certain number of plants for home growing or some other personal consumption rule, and then aim to set the tax level to maximise tax revenue?

Secondly, can you please provide some evidence other than appealing to your own authority as to the relative merits of indoor/outdoor/hydro growing etc? I know it is hard to get sources on something that is illegal in many countries, but I did a quick bit of googling last night and found no clear cut evidence for what you are arguing.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm still trying to work out how it would cost me $X.00 to grow my own, and it would cost the bootleggers the same $X.00 to grown the same stuff, and they'll want to make a profit if they sell it to me, so the black market product will cost me more than growing my own, and somehow the bootleggers are still going to make any money. Maybe they'll sell it to guys like Thomas who think paying $X.00 plus the black market markup is a fair deal when they could grown their own for $X.00.

I'm still trying to work out how parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, and even tomatoes can grow au naturel right out in the sun, but somehow marijuana will shrivel and die or turn into Indiana ditch weed if it isn't indoors in mica and water under expensive artificial lighting...

Or maybe how millions upon millions of people are willing to buy cheap hamburgers and cheap beer and cheap cars when there are arguably better quality choices available, but that phenomenon which seems to apply almost universally to every commercially available thing suddenly takes a crap when it comes to the marijuana market.

Maybe if we all lived next door to a dope store our approach to doing math, understanding biology, or having a grasp on the simple laws of economics would be quite different. Maybe it's the fumes.

 

[BenBurch]

Nah, it will just spur people to grow their own.

Its actually not easy to grow your own tobacco in most places, and people have no idea how to cure it.

 

[BenBurch]

So if there is ever a federal legalization we all need to buy stock in Taco Bell?

White Castle.

 

[BenBurch]

For those who think you cannot grow excellent weed outdoors, let me tell you about an incident from my well-spent youth;

Long ago and far away I was sort of a hippie. I was a Pagan and was member of a Lodge of Pagans in Chicago.

One of the members, now sadly deceased, planted marijuana in the back yard of the lodge which was on Wilson Ave in Chicago.

Well, soon it was so tall you could see it clearly from the alley, and though it had only started to bud they thought it was time to cut it down.

So there were a couple of garbage bags full of plant in the basement of the lodge, and they gave me some of the leaf. Green as grass, not cured. One hit would keep you from getting up and moving for hours.

I took it to a wargaming party I used to attend regularly that was attended by some really hardcore smokers, two of whom were dealers.

I said, "Well, I brought some weed since I've been mooching yours for too long. It's just leaf, a witch friend of mine grew it in the back yard in Chicago..."

So they all laughed and thought they would see how bad it really was.

Not much "War At Sea" or "Panzer Blitz" got played that night.

No hydro.

Just back yard soil in Chicago.

 

[Uncayimmy]

White Castle.

Cantaloupe. Works for munchies and dry mouth.

 

[Arrow]

I watched John Stossel's show the other night on legalizing all drugs. I never gave the idea much thought - legalizing them - but he made several good points. Drugs might not be as addictive as many believe they are, and we pay a heavy price with the violence that is created by prohibition. For me at least, it was a thought provoking show. I'm not for drug use per se, but not as opposed to them as I used to be.

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/06/17/tonights-show-drug-war-disaster-fbn-8pm-midnight-et/

 

[WildCat]

Its actually not easy to grow your own tobacco in most places,

My girlfriend's mother is from a farm in Minnesota, her uncle and many of her cousins are still farmers. Once her uncle grew an acre or so of tobacco just for kicks on his farm in Minnesota. Turns out it grows fine there. It's not as geographically limited as you think.

and people have no idea how to cure it.

And that's why we don't see many people growing their own tobacco. Much (most?) of the taste of commercial tobacco comes from the curing process, which involves all kinds of additives and techniques.

It's the exact opposite for marijuana, curing it just means letting it sit in a jar for a few weeks. All the taste and other properties are inherent to that particular cultivar, which is why for-profit marijuana growers will have a hard time competing with the home growers.

 

[Toke]

Here is a picture of a school class visiting a farm.

Imagine the bales being not hay, but weed from reasonable good seeds.
Indoor growing can quite likely give better weed at a huge difference in price, and will be a rather small marked.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Maaaaaaaaan legalizing pot wouldn't fix a damn thing economically. Honestly I think it could even be bad for the smokers price and quality-wise. The advantage of legalization would be the separation of the plant from the violent gangs/cartels, giving the cannabis industry over to law-abiding entrepreneurs. Technically this wouldn't be for sure stimulative because criminals are part of the real economy too, but justice-wise it's a win-win.