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

[dawgfan]

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

What are you, high?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

What are you, high?

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

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

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

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

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

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

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

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

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

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

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

[lungs]

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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

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

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

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


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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by lungs

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

More importantly:

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

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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

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

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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

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

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

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

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

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by tarcone

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

Why would I think that? Because if it's illegal, the cost to grow and distribute to the end user becomes far higher to account for the fact you have to evade the law the entire way through the process.

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

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

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

Well, a lot of that depends on how much demand there ultimately is for marijuana if it's legal. The more farmers that switch to marijuana production, the greater the supply of it and the lower the prices they'll get for it as a crop. Things would stabilize after a while as farmers learned exactly what the fair market value of marijuana production would be compared to other crops, as well as whether they possess the right land and know-how to compete in the marketplace.

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

[lungs]

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

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

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

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

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

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

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