Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC7 Los Angeles)   Taxing cannabis operations in unincorporated areas that have not yet even been approved, let alone permitted seems like a fine way to guarantee that black market sales will continue to thrive   (abc7.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Unincorporated area, Los Angeles County, California, LOS ANGELES, cannabis operations, Los Angeles County voters, Local government, business taxes, County  
•       •       •

934 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Aug 2022 at 12:30 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-11 12:32:11 AM  
external-content.duckduckgo.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-11 12:34:26 AM  
Uh. "Once such businesses have been permitted."

What am I missing?
 
2022-08-11 12:38:12 AM  
table9mutant.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-11 12:39:17 AM  

Dafatone: Uh. "Once such businesses have been permitted."

What am I missing?


The contextual use of 'permitted,' which, in the context of government at this level rarely means 'allowed' and almost always the other thing:

'When they have paid the right people received their business permits from Los Angeles County.'

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a 'use tax' demand - ha! for work that occurred entirely in Hong Kong - to contend with. 9:37p, should have just enough time to get to the assessor's before the night guards come on shift.
 
2022-08-11 12:40:47 AM  
Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!
 
2022-08-11 12:41:55 AM  

missiv: [table9mutant.files.wordpress.com image 500x200] [View Full Size image _x_]


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-11 12:42:22 AM  
That's pretty much why the social clubs are getting cracked down on here in the Twin Tiers region of NY.

See, there aren't any legal dispensaries yet. Sales permits haven't been issued. But if you run a "cannabis social club" you can GIVE wees away. Why, all you have to do is become a member. Your club dues are $30. And to thank you for a member, have this 8th of weed.

They've been raided a bunch of times and taxation is always the stated reason. They operate a business but don't generate or collect tax revenue. You can get people high all you want, but don't you dare get caught trying to dodge Uncle Sugar.
 
2022-08-11 12:46:33 AM  
Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?
 
2022-08-11 12:50:46 AM  
Prison industry donates more to Republican politicians than the marijuana industry.

Moose out front that you're not sure is real should've told you.
 
2022-08-11 12:52:41 AM  

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!


Actually, yikes. I commented before realizing that I smoked some that I think was wet without me realizing it. It was not a CSB.
 
2022-08-11 12:52:53 AM  
Well subby, I'd guess in the worst case it'd mean they can hit illegal growers/distributors/retailers with tax evasion too. A pretty time honored and potent law enforcement tool.
 
2022-08-11 12:55:46 AM  

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!


I don't think I could find brick weed right now if I tried. There is also no more "things are dry this week." Not with every state at least bordering a legal state.

Kids don't know what we went through. They just don't know.
 
2022-08-11 1:01:56 AM  

maybeyoushould: nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!

I don't think I could find brick weed right now if I tried. There is also no more "things are dry this week." Not with every state at least bordering a legal state.

Kids don't know what we went through. They just don't know.


I funnied that but I'm crying.
 
2022-08-11 1:12:53 AM  

maybeyoushould: nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!

I don't think I could find brick weed right now if I tried. There is also no more "things are dry this week." Not with every state at least bordering a legal state.

Kids don't know what we went through. They just don't know.


The first time I bought the ol' jazz cabbage - I had a brief teenaged necessity to deal a farkton of drugs, a story I have told elsewhere in full but don't feel up for, tonight - I had to listen to an endless tale from Mama Dealer, there, about the Great Drought of '89. It was seriously like listening to some grizzled pioneer talk of the dire winter from a hundred years before.

I won't say I turned into Marlo Stansfield but gotsdamn did I grow impatient at that shiat. Shut up, take my money and let me the fark out of Midtown already. 

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-11 1:17:19 AM  
Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE
 
ecl
2022-08-11 1:36:48 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE


"Pot users"

Okay Squarehead.
 
2022-08-11 2:06:28 AM  
How are they screwing this up? 

Probably the same way NY and NJ are screwing it up : 

Nobody wants their town to become full of "stinky potheads" and "ERMIGERD THINK OF The CHILDREN"

So now instead of "morally illegal" it's "business illegal" 

TA DA !
 
2022-08-11 2:33:55 AM  
In PDX, there's a half dozen licensed dispensaries within a 20 minute walk of my place. They're all staffed by hipsters with a single buzz-through door.

In San Diego, there's a single licensed dispensary within a half hour drive of my old place, that's got armed guards and double-sequenced security doors and is filled with Apple-store geek employees.

CA's legalization implementation has been abysmal. It's not much of a wonder that pirate outfits run rampant when huge areas aren't allowed to be licensed at all and every small jurisdiction likes to flex its power and refuse licensing to anyone for years.
 
2022-08-11 2:46:30 AM  

mongbiohazard: Well subby, I'd guess in the worst case it'd mean they can hit illegal growers/distributors/retailers with tax evasion too. A pretty time honored and potent law enforcement tool.


Utah has had marijuana stamps for tax purposes since 1992, specifically to hit dealers with tax evasion.
 
2022-08-11 4:17:37 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE


Just how "legal" is it if they're still deciding whether or not to allow retail sales?
 
2022-08-11 5:10:57 AM  

Dafatone: Uh. "Once such businesses have been permitted."

What am I missing?


Nothing. Subby is an idiot.
 
2022-08-11 5:12:46 AM  

nicholas m schumacher: nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!

Actually, yikes. I commented before realizing that I smoked some that I think was wet without me realizing it. It was not a CSB.


We can thank Wayne Brady for me getting this reference
 
2022-08-11 5:16:06 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: Bennie Crabtree: Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE

Just how "legal" is it if they're still deciding whether or not to allow retail sales?


Will you get thrown in jail if you have it on you? If no, then it's fully legal.
 
2022-08-11 6:28:52 AM  
There'll be a black market for weed in every legal at retail area as long as consumers perceive no difference in suitability for their purposes between street weed and storebought.  Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter.  By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.  This will tend to work to the advantage of street dealers, who don't pay taxes, who don't buy licenses, who don't comply with expensive regulations, and who don't have the overhead that people who operate stores do.

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!


The problem isn't the weed so much as the water theft, the detritus left behind by the growers (including pesticide runoff), and the growers' intimidation of neighbors.

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/07/31/illegal-marijuana-grows-threaten-antelope-valleys-way-of-life/  (copy/paste)

stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?


That's what they said all right.
 
2022-08-11 7:42:18 AM  

tirob: Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter. By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.


Plants just grow. Alcohol production is a science.
 
2022-08-11 8:04:33 AM  

tirob: There'll be a black market for weed in every legal at retail area as long as consumers perceive no difference in suitability for their purposes between street weed and storebought.  Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter.  By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.  This will tend to work to the advantage of street dealers, who don't pay taxes, who don't buy licenses, who don't comply with expensive regulations, and who don't have the overhead that people who operate stores do.

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!

The problem isn't the weed so much as the water theft, the detritus left behind by the growers (including pesticide runoff), and the growers' intimidation of neighbors.

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/07/31/illegal-marijuana-grows-threaten-antelope-valleys-way-of-life/  (copy/paste)

stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?

That's what they said all right.


Let me lay out a little skit for you to illustrate how brain-numbingly dumb your take is here:

"Excuse me sir, do you think some level of taxation is reasonable to fund basic services, education, etc?"

"Yeah I think so"

"Ok your tax rate is 98% of your income"

"Um but that's a bit high and makes it hard for me to function"

"BUT YOU SAID TAXES WERE GOOD YOU ARE HYOPCRITE I AM VERY INTELLIGNET"

(That last part is what you sound like to me)
 
2022-08-11 8:12:19 AM  

jaylectricity: tirob: Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter. By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

Plants just grow. Alcohol production is a science.


If you believe that cannabis plants that are intended for market "just grow," I suggest that you read this story I linked in my previous post:

https://www.dailynews.com/2022/07/31/illegal-marijuana-grows-threaten-antelope-valleys-way-of-life

(copy/paste)

Growers, especially illegal growers, use all sorts of pesticides and mildewicides to protect their merchandise before they harvest it.  Some of those compounds--myclobutanil, which turns into hydrogen cyanide when it's heated, is one of the most notorious--can work their way into the harvested product.  Do most weed users care?  They don't seem to.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/illicit-cannabis-seized-by-opp-laced-with-pesticides-less-thc-than-advertised   (copy/paste)
 
2022-08-11 8:35:44 AM  

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!


This dude encapsulates a lot of the issues with the way we've gone about legalization.

If you have a hyperagressive enforcement, that undermines a big part of the proposed savings and benefits of legalization.

If you tax the heck out of it, then people are incentivized to buy on the black market. And this is a black market that already exists, so it is an easy call.

I don't think I fully appreciated either point, before seeing it play out in real time. I was not on the "think of the new revenue" bandwagon either, but unfortunately the political class very much was, and it is definitely making the experiment less than what it should be.

Trying to tie social issues to some mythical new revenue is a risky play.
 
2022-08-11 8:46:47 AM  

tirob: stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?

That's what they said all right.


That is what they said is a pretty simplistic take. Most people talked at length about the injustice of criminalizing, and the harmlessness of the stuff, but it wasn't until the possibility of revenue got brought into the discussion that the politicos and squares started to listen.

I think it was a mistake to go down that road, but that was because all of the completely reasonable arguments were on deaf ears until someone said money.
 
2022-08-11 8:56:39 AM  
i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine who I am speaking of.
 
2022-08-11 9:03:20 AM  

nicholas m schumacher: Our board must be clear: we will not tolerate illegal cannabis operations. Growers who operate illegally undermine our efforts to create a regulated and responsible cannabis industry, and often do so at the expense of the rural communities I represent. I'm firmly committed to upholding the law and will corral all available resources to enhance enforcement and abatement efforts.

If only there was something this dude could take to chill the fark out about people growing weed.

What's the problem, it'll be brick weed? Oh no! Not all the weed I paid for and smoked in my 20s!!!


In VIrginia, I grow my own.  Legally.
 
2022-08-11 9:05:59 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE


Two problems: Local officials are trying to have it both ways - they want the tax revenue, but they forgot the other half - lowering the police presence because you're dealing with so much less minor drug offenses. If you're over taxing it and then using cops to stop illegal grows, then a lot of your savings and revenue are not gonna happen.
 
2022-08-11 10:32:38 AM  

jaylectricity: tirob: Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter. By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

Plants just grow. Alcohol production is a science.


I grow weed, and I can tell you that there is a lot of science to it as well, in fact I'd argue it takes more than your average distiller. It's closer to growing grapes for really good wine. Weed you have to control conditions; temp, humidity, light, soil ph, water ph, vapor pressure differential (VPD) and specific feeding schedules/amounts.

I have multiple controllers that control light, heat, humidity automatically and I measure things like VPD as well as PPFD/PAR values for light and adjust conditions 3 times during the grow cycle.

tirob: Growers, especially illegal growers, use all sorts of pesticides and mildewicides to protect their merchandise before they harvest it.  Some of those compounds--myclobutanil, which turns into hydrogen cyanide when it's heated, is one of the most notorious--can work their way into the harvested product.  Do most weed users care?  They don't seem to.


Out West I hear they do, but out here in the East you are much more likely to get indoor weed grown under better conditions with no chemical applications for pests or undesirable weeds. Organic growing (no nutes) is growing in popularity as well, with complimentary plants and rich soils produced with microbes from various composts and / or microbe food mixes that are added to the soil during planting like: quinoa ferment, microbes and mycorrhizae, kashi, barley and a couple types of compost. With that solution, you have to do very little when it comes to feeding - basically just keep it watered.
 
2022-08-11 12:25:30 PM  

qorkfiend: common sense is an oxymoron: Bennie Crabtree: Pot users for the last 50 years: THINK OF HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WILL MAKE TAXING IT. LEGALIZE!! LEGALIZE!!!

Govt: Okay.

Pot users: ...ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE ILLEGALIZE

Just how "legal" is it if they're still deciding whether or not to allow retail sales?

Will you get thrown in jail if you have it on you? If no, then it's fully legal.


Will the only local source get thrown in jail if you buy any from them because the local government refuses to allow dispensaries? If yes, then it isn't fully legal.
 
2022-08-11 1:19:44 PM  

tirob: There'll be a black market for weed in every legal at retail area as long as consumers perceive no difference in suitability for their purposes between street weed and storebought.  Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter.  By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.


You're awfully fond of this assumption that it's something about cannabis consumers themselves that makes government regulation of the market impractical. But if this is true, then how do you explain the difference between, say, California's black market and Oregon's? Even you have conceded that Oregon's black market has steadily decreased since legalization while California's has flourished. You've never offered any evidence to support your claim, and the significant difference in black-market share between the two states seems like a strong argument against it.
 
2022-08-11 4:18:05 PM  

Drank_the_40_water: tirob: stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?

That's what they said all right.

That is what they said is a pretty simplistic take. Most people talked at length about the injustice of criminalizing, and the harmlessness of the stuff, but it wasn't until the possibility of revenue got brought into the discussion that the politicos and squares started to listen.

I think it was a mistake to go down that road, but that was because all of the completely reasonable arguments were on deaf ears until someone said money.


Because it's all about money.

Boils down to who you want to give it to. The city and state, where the money then goes to maintain infrastructure, road, bridges, and schools, or Cartels who rob, kill, and intimidate people, all while ripping off the people actually farming and growing the stuff.

Legal weed was never going to be a tax-free business.
 
2022-08-11 5:52:56 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: There'll be a black market for weed in every legal at retail area as long as consumers perceive no difference in suitability for their purposes between street weed and storebought.  Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter.  By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

You're awfully fond of this assumption that it's something about cannabis consumers themselves that makes government regulation of the market impractical. But if this is true, then how do you explain the difference between, say, California's black market and Oregon's?


It's true that California's black market is proportionately much larger according to all the reports I'm seeing.  I suspect that one reason for that is that the large illicit market next door in Cali can absorb much of what Oregon's illicit producers are putting out, so that there's less need for them to try to compete in the much smaller and less lucrative market in Oregon.

common sense is an oxymoron: Even you have conceded that Oregon's black market has steadily decreased since legalization while California's has flourished. You've never offered any evidence to support your claim, and the significant difference in black-market share between the two states seems like a strong argument against it.


The evidence that supports my claim is the continuing existence of a large black market for weed in California, the biggest single weed market in North America, and incidentally also the continuing existence of a sizable black market for weed in Oregon, which is a much much smaller market.

phimuskapsi:

tirob: Growers, especially illegal growers, use all sorts of pesticides and mildewicides to protect their merchandise before they harvest it.  Some of those compounds--myclobutanil, which turns into hydrogen cyanide when it's heated, is one of the most notorious--can work their way into the harvested product.  Do most weed users care?  They don't seem to.

Out West I hear they do, but out here in the East you are much more likely to get indoor weed grown under better conditions with no chemical applications for pests or undesirable weeds. Organic growing (no nutes) is growing in popularity as well, with complimentary plants and rich soils produced with microbes from various composts and / or microbe food mixes that are added to the soil during planting like: quinoa ferment, microbes and mycorrhizae, kashi, barley and a couple types of compost. With that solution, you have to do very little when it comes to feeding - basically just keep it watered.


The market for weed everywhere will seem to bear stuff that's grown under questionable conditions.  The last time I checked, for example, black market weed accounted for ~three quarters of sales in California and ~two thirds of sales in Massachusetts.  I'm sure there are exceptions in the form of consumers who demand organically grown stuff, but they appear to me to be a minority.

Drank_the_40_water: tirob: stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?

That's what they said all right.

That is what they said is a pretty simplistic take. Most people talked at length about the injustice of criminalizing, and the harmlessness of the stuff, but it wasn't until the possibility of revenue got brought into the discussion that the politicos and squares started to listen.

I think it was a mistake to go down that road, but that was because all of the completely reasonable arguments were on deaf ears until someone said money.


My recollection is that the most successful argument in Colorado was that weed was "safer" than alcohol.  You need not legalize the trade in weed in order to decriminalize possession for use of it, btw.

Charletron: stoli n coke: Isn't that the whole point of why people wanted it legalized? So it can be taxed and regulated?

That's what they said all right.

Let me lay out a little skit for you to illustrate how brain-numbingly dumb your take is here:

"Excuse me sir, do you think some level of taxation is reasonable to fund basic services, education, etc?"

"Yeah I think so"

"Ok your tax rate is 98% of your income"

"Um but that's a bit high and makes it hard for me to function"

"BUT YOU SAID TAXES WERE GOOD YOU ARE HYOPCRITE I AM VERY INTELLIGNET"

(That last part is what you sound like to me)


Not sure what you're going on about here.  My point is that trying to tax and regulate the trade in weed isn't working out too well for various reasons, one of which seems to me to be that users are slow to make the transition from buying on the street to buying in stores.

stoli n coke:

Boils down to who you want to give it to. The city and state, where the money then goes to maintain infrastructure, road, bridges, and schools, or Cartels who rob, kill, and intimidate people, all while ripping off the people actually farming and growing the stuff.

So far, the salient feature of legalization is that you give the money to both.
 
2022-08-11 7:34:45 PM  

tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: There'll be a black market for weed in every legal at retail area as long as consumers perceive no difference in suitability for their purposes between street weed and storebought.  Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter.  By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

You're awfully fond of this assumption that it's something about cannabis consumers themselves that makes government regulation of the market impractical. But if this is true, then how do you explain the difference between, say, California's black market and Oregon's?

It's true that California's black market is proportionately much larger according to all the reports I'm seeing.  I suspect that one reason for that is that the large illicit market next door in Cali can absorb much of what Oregon's illicit producers are putting out, so that there's less need for them to try to compete in the much smaller and less lucrative market in Oregon.

common sense is an oxymoron: Even you have conceded that Oregon's black market has steadily decreased since legalization while California's has flourished. You've never offered any evidence to support your claim, and the significant difference in black-market share between the two states seems like a strong argument against it.

The evidence that supports my claim is the continuing existence of a large black market for weed in California, the biggest single weed market in North America, and incidentally also the continuing existence of a sizable black market for weed in Oregon, which is a much much smaller market.


And now we can add "differences" to the list of concepts that are beyond your understanding. How large Is California's black market compared to Oregon's, and how have their respective black-market shares trended over time? Without any evidence to support your assumption, all you have is some sort of bizarre caricature that makes sense only to you.
 
2022-08-11 7:45:47 PM  

tirob: My point is that trying to tax and regulate the trade in weed isn't working out too well for various reasons, one of which seems to me to be that users are slow to make the transition from buying on the street to buying in stores.


What point? By what standard is the transition "slow"? How long did it take alcohol users to transition to the much safer...oops, looks like I shouldn't have used the past tense.

https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2022/02/accused-pa-bootleggers-with-legendary-moonshine-recipe-busted-by-plcb.html
 
2022-08-11 8:24:14 PM  

phimuskapsi: jaylectricity: tirob: Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter. By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

Plants just grow. Alcohol production is a science.

I grow weed, and I can tell you that there is a lot of science to it as well, in fact I'd argue it takes more than your average distiller. It's closer to growing grapes for really good wine. Weed you have to control conditions; temp, humidity, light, soil ph, water ph, vapor pressure differential (VPD) and specific feeding schedules/amounts.

I have multiple controllers that control light, heat, humidity automatically and I measure things like VPD as well as PPFD/PAR values for light and adjust conditions 3 times during the grow cycle.


I was trying to keep it simple for the simpleton.

I understand there's a lot of science involved in cultivating really good plants. What I meant was we don't just harvest alcohol from an alcohol plant. Things have to be done to produce alcohol.
 
2022-08-11 8:55:18 PM  

common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: My point is that trying to tax and regulate the trade in weed isn't working out too well for various reasons, one of which seems to me to be that users are slow to make the transition from buying on the street to buying in stores.

What point? By what standard is the transition "slow"? How long did it take alcohol users to transition to the much safer...oops, looks like I shouldn't have used the past tense.

https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2022/02/accused-pa-bootleggers-with-legendary-moonshine-recipe-busted-by-plcb.html


The transition is slow, say, compared to what's going on in Maine, where black market share has been reduced to <40 percent in the two years since legalization there.  I don't know what Maine is doing differently from other states.

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/06/14/maines-cannabis-black-market-shrinking-faster-than-expected-survey-says/

common sense is an oxymoron: How large Is California's black market compared to Oregon's, and how have their respective black-market shares trended over time?


I think you know the answer to this.  I've already alluded to estimates of CA's black market share here.  Estimates of the black market share in OR range between 20 and 50 percent.  In other words, we don't know what's going on in Oregon so much.

common sense is an oxymoron:   Without any evidence to support your assumption

The evidence to support my assumption is staring you in the face.  If large numbers of people in Oregon and California are buying street weed, it would follow that they believe that the stuff is just as suitable for their purposes as storebought weed is.

jaylectricity: phimuskapsi: jaylectricity: tirob: Even alcoholics will usually pay a small premium for taxed spirits over hooch so that they don't get killed or blinded by the latter. By contrast, weed users by and large don't seem to draw a similar distinction between what they get from their guy and what is on sale at the store.

Plants just grow. Alcohol production is a science.

I grow weed, and I can tell you that there is a lot of science to it as well, in fact I'd argue it takes more than your average distiller. It's closer to growing grapes for really good wine. Weed you have to control conditions; temp, humidity, light, soil ph, water ph, vapor pressure differential (VPD) and specific feeding schedules/amounts.

I have multiple controllers that control light, heat, humidity automatically and I measure things like VPD as well as PPFD/PAR values for light and adjust conditions 3 times during the grow cycle.

I was trying to keep it simple for the simpleton.

I understand there's a lot of science involved in cultivating really good plants. What I meant was we don't just harvest alcohol from an alcohol plant. Things have to be done to produce alcohol.


Your response was "simple," all right.  And factually incorrect in this context.
 
2022-08-11 10:38:35 PM  

tirob: Your response was "simple," all right. And factually incorrect in this context.


La-dee-dah. Sleep well.
 
2022-08-11 10:54:38 PM  

tirob: My recollection is that the most successful argument in Colorado was that weed was "safer" than alcohol.  You need not legalize the trade in weed in order to decriminalize possession for use of it, btw.


It is. Do you see it causing tens of thousands of accidents a year? No, you don't. 

Legalizing the trade, in most laws, is more extensive than just making it legal to sell. In NYS for example, you can't drug test for it anymore, you can smoke wherever you are allowed to otherwise smoke in NYS, you can grow it, and it is no longer prosecuted by any AG.

tirob: The evidence that supports my claim is the continuing existence of a large black market for weed in California, the biggest single weed market in North America, and incidentally also the continuing existence of a sizable black market for weed in Oregon, which is a much much smaller market.


I would say that a black market exists, but CA has sold almost $14 billion dollars of weed from 2018-2021, and contributed $3+ billion to the tax revenue. That's a LOT, that's equivalent to CO sales since 2014. Black market will always exist to a point, most people are familiar with their dealer and in many cases, the relationship is more that just buyer seller after years of business. The other mistake is that retail costs more in most cases. If retail wasn't priced to be greedy, they'd kill the black market overnight and they have hurt it. I have several friends that sell, and one is pretty unhappy about all the new growers starting now that it is legal-lite.

I can go to a friend and buy an ounce for $220, of really high-test, home grown weed. I can also get concentrate - he presses it in a machine he has. If I were to go to a store to buy the same amount, it'd be $40-60 per 3.5 grams, and would cost $320-480 to get the same amount of weed. Fix that, and you fix all the problems you describe.
 
2022-08-11 11:30:53 PM  

tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: My point is that trying to tax and regulate the trade in weed isn't working out too well for various reasons, one of which seems to me to be that users are slow to make the transition from buying on the street to buying in stores.

What point? By what standard is the transition "slow"? How long did it take alcohol users to transition to the much safer...oops, looks like I shouldn't have used the past tense.

https://www.pennlive.com/crime/2022/02/accused-pa-bootleggers-with-legendary-moonshine-recipe-busted-by-plcb.html

The transition is slow, say, compared to what's going on in Maine, where black market share has been reduced to <40 percent in the two years since legalization there.  I don't know what Maine is doing differently from other states.

https://www.pressherald.com/2022/06/14/maines-cannabis-black-market-shrinking-faster-than-expected-survey-says/


Unless you're suggesting that cannabis users in Maine are fundamentally different from cannabis users elsewhere, that doesn't do much to support your argument that it's the users themselves who are responsible for California's robust black market and not any differences in the enabling legislation.

tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: How large Is California's black market compared to Oregon's, and how have their respective black-market shares trended over time?

I think you know the answer to this.  I've already alluded to estimates of CA's black market share here.  Estimates of the black market share in OR range between 20 and 50 percent.  In other words, we don't know what's going on in Oregon so much.


But we do know that the black-market share in California is greater than that in Oregon. Again, if cannabis users are as uniformly apathetic about their supply as you believe, there must be some other factor(s) involved. Not knowing the *exact* figures from Oregon shouldn't stop you from answering the question in *general* terms unless you choose to use that as some sort of excuse.

tirob: common sense is an oxymoron:   Without any evidence to support your assumption

The evidence to support my assumption is staring you in the face.  If large numbers of people in Oregon and California are buying street weed, it would follow that they believe that the stuff is just as suitable for their purposes as storebought weed is.


That's your evidence?

Fark user imageView Full Size


Because buying from the guy on the corner instead of the dispensary a four-hour round trip and $50 worth of gas away can only mean what you want it to mean, right?
 
2022-08-12 8:01:56 AM  

phimuskapsi: tirob: My recollection is that the most successful argument in Colorado was that weed was "safer" than alcohol.  You need not legalize the trade in weed in order to decriminalize possession for use of it, btw.

It is.


According to whom?  Do you have any comparative scientific studies you can point me in the direction of?  Preferably ones that take into account the hazards of both acute and chronic consumption?

phimuskapsi: Do you see it causing tens of thousands of accidents a year?


I see weed causing some accidents.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/09/driver_high_on_marijuana_when.html

The number of accidents caused by weed is probably fewer than the number caused by alcohol.  Which would stand to reason, as the number of people who use weed is fewer than the number who consume booze.  Also, there are some people out there who consume both booze *and* weed.  Together, sometimes.  That sort of thing would lead me to believe that it is difficult and complicated accurately to make comparisons of the relative harms of the substances.

phimuskapsi: Legalizing the trade, in most laws, is more extensive than just making it legal to sell.


Yes.  Our friend whom I responded to had referred to     the injustice of criminalizing,    and I understood that as an argument for commercialization.  My point was that it is possible to decriminalize without using the law to protect the trade in weed.

phimuskapsi: tirob: The evidence that supports my claim is the continuing existence of a large black market for weed in California, the biggest single weed market in North America, and incidentally also the continuing existence of a sizable black market for weed in Oregon, which is a much much smaller market.

I would say that a black market exists, but CA has sold almost $14 billion dollars of weed from 2018-2021, and contributed $3+ billion to the tax revenue. That's a LOT,


California's annual budget in 2021-22 was $196 billion.  If weed taxes contribute $750 million to that, we're talking about four tenths of one percent of the total.  Out of which CA is paying the (ineffective) bureaucracy that oversees the trade.  I think the state could manage without the money--and without the bureaucracy.

phimuskapsi: Black market will always exist to a point, most people are familiar with their dealer and in many cases, the relationship is more that just buyer seller after years of business.


Yes.

phimuskapsi: The other mistake is that retail costs more in most cases. If retail wasn't priced to be greedy, they'd kill the black market overnight


Retailers pass the money they pay in taxes, licensing fees, and overhead on to the consumer.  They also generally don't serve buyers who are under 21, who form a substantial percentage of the market.  Both of these things will serve to keep the black market in business.

phimuskapsi:

I can go to a friend and buy an ounce for $220, of really high-test, home grown weed. I can also get concentrate - he presses it in a machine he has. If I were to go to a store to buy the same amount, it'd be $40-60 per 3.5 grams, and would cost $320-480 to get the same amount of weed. Fix that, and you fix all the problems you describe.

True.  If you have any suggestions on *how* to fix that, I'd be interested in hearing them.

common sense is an oxymoron: Unless you're suggesting that cannabis users in Maine are fundamentally different from cannabis users elsewhere, that doesn't do much to support your argument that it's the users themselves who are responsible for California's robust black market and not any differences in the enabling legislation.


I think that both the users' undiscriminating tastes and the differing legislation in the relevant states are factors.  There are other factors, too, I'm sure; our friend phimuskapsi mentioned, for example, that s/he does business with a friend, so I assume that existing relationships play a part, too.

common sense is an oxymoron: But we do know that the black-market share in California is greater than that in Oregon. Again, if cannabis users are as uniformly apathetic about their supply as you believe, there must be some other factor(s) involved.


Probably true.  Neither of us knows to what extent, though.

common sense is an oxymoron: tirob: common sense is an oxymoron: Without any evidence to support your assumption

The evidence to support my assumption is staring you in the face. If large numbers of people in Oregon and California are buying street weed, it would follow that they believe that the stuff is just as suitable for their purposes as storebought weed is.

That's your evidence?

[Fark user image image 363x310]

Because buying from the guy on the corner instead of the dispensary a four-hour round trip and $50 worth of gas away can only mean what you want it to mean, right?


You mean weed store.

Come on now.  We both know that weed can be had via delivery services in both CA and OR.
 
2022-08-12 12:30:53 PM  

tirob: Retailers pass the money they pay in taxes, licensing fees, and overhead on to the consumer.  They also generally don't serve buyers who are under 21, who form a substantial percentage of the market.  Both of these things will serve to keep the black market in business.


Yes, but overhead is not 40-50%, it just isn't. At scale, large operations can grow much more cheaply than say a basement grower that is limited in space. The initial start up costs of growing are expensive, but the maintained growing costs are a 10th those costs, if not less.

tirob: California's annual budget in 2021-22 was $196 billion.  If weed taxes contribute $750 million to that, we're talking about four tenths of one percent of the total.  Out of which CA is paying the (ineffective) bureaucracy that oversees the trade.  I think the state could manage without the money--and without the bureaucracy.


Believe it or not, it's almost double the amount per year that alcohol taxes pull in.

tirob: According to whom?  Do you have any comparative scientific studies you can point me in the direction of?  Preferably ones that take into account the hazards of both acute and chronic consumption?


The hazards of consumption include: apathy, short term memory loss, and minor psychological effects and over a long term it might affect your lungs - but even that is up for debate. You can't overdose from it, and cannabis has a LOAD of good byproducts that contribute to your health, rather than retract from it, if you moderate your consumption to edibles for example, you don't face the smoking concerns. No one dies from consuming it, automatically making it better than almost any "sin" drug out there, from nicotine to alcohol.

tirob: The number of accidents caused by weed is probably fewer than the number caused by alcohol.  Which would stand to reason, as the number of people who use weed is fewer than the number who consume booze


"In the background and introduction section (above) we reviewed previous studies that have estimated the risk of crash involvement associated with marijuana use by drivers. The results of this study are in line with the previous research on the effects of marijuana on the risk of crash involvement. While a number of previous studies have shown some increased risk associated with marijuana use by drivers, many studies have not found increased risk. As was noted previously, studies that measure the presence of THC in the drivers' blood or oral fluid, rather than relying on self-report tend to have much lower (or no elevated) crash risk estimates. Likewise, better controlled studies have found lower (or no) elevated crash risk estimates. Thus, the results of this study are consistent with the previous well controlled studies. While the findings of this case control study were equivocal with regard to the crash risk associated with drug use by drivers, these results do not indicate that drug use by drivers is risk-free."

NHSTA Study -https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812117-Drug_and_Alcohol_Crash_Risk.pdf
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.