This is pretty interesting situation considering that it's as close to free market as you can get. Legalization could be good or bad but I think the more people, who currently don't use it due to legality, would consume pot and thus keep the prices stable. I have no experience with growing pot but it seems to be a pretty easy thing to do and thus supply is abundant. The market should readjust but that will be harsh
I doubt there's an enormous untapped market here, given the stats on the current number of users. And there's no particular economic reason to think that "prices would remain stable"; yes, demand might rise, but supply will definitely rise (even if supplies were materially constant supply effectively rises due to lowered total cost of production due to lower risk of imprisonment), and there's no a priori reason to believe that these two forces would be even remotely in balance, even if they both exist. That's the way a human brain thinks about things, not the way reality works.
High quality oregano is ~$5 a pound, according to a quick web search. Is there any particular reason to believe it wouldn't stabilize in roughly the same place give or take, say, 5x, if legalized? (And bear in mind that taxes not only don't go to the producer, they actually inhibit produce demand (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Cha... , search for "Who Pays Taxes?"), so that only makes it worse for these guys if the government starts taxes it punitively.) That's still over a full order of magnitude price drop from the estimates of MJ/lb I could dig up. It strikes me as very, very likely the bulk of the cost is compensation for taking on risk, rather than material or labor costs.
"True, and grapes are 2.99 a pound at the local grocery store. Doesn't seem to explain why a good dinner table wine can be upwards of $100 a bottle."
While there is an element of perceived value built into the price of a bottle of wine, much more goes into pricing a bottle of wine than the price of grapes.
Different grape varietals can be more or less easy to grow depending on skin thickness, adaptability to different climates, and disease resistance. The pinot noir grape, a notoriously finicky varietal, really only shines in cooler regions and its thin skin makes it highly susceptible to disease. Other grape varietals, like Chardonnay, are highly adaptable to a number of different regions and soil types.
Once harvested, grapes are typically sorted according to quality. The best grapes are used for the best wines. The excess, low-quality harvest is usually used for blending into massive batches of lower quality wine or grape juice or it's thrown into compost to fertilize the next year's crop.
Once the juice from the grapes is pressed and fermented, the wine, depending on type, will either be aged in oak barrels or steel tanks. American Oak Barrels can range in price from $500-$1000 and French Oak Barrels can be double that. If aged in oak, which is typical of many reds and a few whites, the aging can typically take anywhere from a few months to many years.
Once aged, the winemaker will typically select small samples from different barrels and experiment with different blends to get the optimal blend for balance and aging.
All this being said, here's what I learned from working at a smaller winery in Virginia for a year: As a rule of thumb, most of our wines cost about $5-6 per bottle to produce. In the winery, we would sell at retail between $10-30 depending on the type of wine. We would sell at wholesale to restaurants and stores at $8-12/bottle. Stores would typically mark the bottles up to match what we sold the wine at at retail in the winery. Restaurants on the other hand will typically mark up a wine 3-5x what they purchased the wine at to account for corked wine, uncorking fees, storage costs, and of course to make a profit.
So sure, marketing and perception play a big part establishing a market price for wine. (Thus a huge jump in Pinot sales the year after Sideways came out, and a corresponding drop in Merlot sales). But it's also naive to compare the mass-produced Concord or Niagra grapes you're getting at a grocery store to the bottle of wine you're getting at a restaurant.
>But it's also naive to compare the mass-produced Concord or Niagra grapes you're getting at a grocery store to the bottle of wine you're getting at a restaurant.
As naive as some here assuming that all marijuana would be grown, harvested, processed, packaged, and marketed like bulk oregano?
The process of cultivating, harvesting, trimming, drying and curing medicinal-grade Marijuana is as involved and labor-intensive as any other artisanal process like winemaking or gourmet food preparation. It can't be that everyone still thinks it's essentially Cheech and Chong growing bagseed in their high school dorm room closet.
Take a look at the lengths people will go to find and cultivate world-beating cannabis:
I can definitely tell you this much: California has had essentially legal cannabis for over a decade now, Amsterdam even longer. Growers and dispensaries/shops operate in clear view of the law and only a few ever see serious legal repercussions.
I can also tell you that properly dried and cured cannabis of an exotic or perceivably powerful or flavorful strain is about $400 per ounce. Regular, serviceable "bulk" weed grown outdoors for commercial trade runs about 75-100 an ounce. THAT market I can see becoming commoditized. The high-end market, maybe a bit, but not nearly to such an extent.
Along with the disassembly of your point made by others, I'd observe that your argument falls flat even before we get to the question of wine. Bulk MJ is much more like oregano in the processing and creation than a wine process; its mind altering-ness hardly factors into costs of production at all.
I think you may be making a critical, but easy, economic error, which is considering only one side of the supply/demand dynamic. Yes, demand may be sky high, but that only implies high prices if supply is scarce. Things with sky-high demand and a corresponding sky-high supply are still frequently very, very cheap. And legal MJ's supply would be sky high; as others have pointed out, it's called "weed" for a reason. It is not hard to grow, it is not hard to process, it is not hard to move, it doesn't take specialized equipment beyond what already exists off the shelf. The only two ways for the price to end up even remotely high is for the government to tax the hell out of it, or for a cartel to form. And it's very difficult to see how a cartel could form under those circumstances, too; how would you form a dandelion cartel?
First, it takes ~3 lbs of grapes to make a bottle of wine (and the grapes aren't likely the same as the ones you buy in a store). So that would be ~$9/bottle based on the 2.99/lb you mentioned, which is probably a lot more common than $100/bottle. Trader Joe's wine is what, $3?
Even so, you haven't accounted for the winemaking process, which I imagine is significantly more complicated and time consuming than the marijuana-making process (does it involving anything more than drying the leaves?).
Surely there would be craft/luxury brands that are more expensive, but I think for mass-producers, selling a cheaper (as in not cost prohibitive) product would be significantly more profitable.
> Even so, you haven't accounted for the winemaking process, which I imagine is significantly more complicated and time consuming than the marijuana-making process (does it involving anything more than drying the leaves?)
Well, if we're to set aside the actual strain-crossing, hybridization of sativa and indica (not to mention with ruderalis for a different flowering and flavor profile), cloning, pulling of males and hermaphrodites, creating plants simply for harvesting feminized seeds guaranteed to yield _foo_ amount of grams per plant or per square foot of space depending on lighting, and on and on... then yes, cannabis is not like wine.
Making high-quality hashish, butane hash oils, tinctures, or other "decoctions" such as icewater extraction, are supplemental processes that require significant labor for the amount produced.
I hear you, though. Winemaking is fancy and there have been shows like "Falcon Crest" that chronicle it with an heir of refinement and love's labor that you don't see from, for example, "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle". Cannabis will, until fully legalized, always be demonized and caricatured as a rebellious college kids' vice.
It is an extremely significant cash crop in the US, though; and I think it will be even when legalization does come around; much moreso than, say, oregano or sage.
> True, and grapes are 2.99 a pound at the local grocery store.
Yes, and by the pound is how bulk MJ is bought and sold at a wholesale level.
> Doesn't seem to explain why a good dinner table wine can be upwards of $100 a bottle.
This has been post-processed, aged, and blended by masters whose work is more art than science. I'm not sure there is a good analogue in MJ world except perhaps hashish or hash oil. Hashish is relatively easy to produce and may be aged. It is certainly refined to a greater potency than bulk MJ.
So it will cost more per weight unit than bulk MJ.
In this article "Prices are now much less than $2,000 a pound."
A lot of pro legalisation campaigners take the "imagine how much you could collect in taxes" approach and calculate based roughly on the current size of the industry.
I think marijuana is easy enough to produce and responsive enough to modern agricultural tricks to be a pretty small industry. Perhaps orders of magnitudes smaller then alcohol.
As others have mentioned, there will probably be a premium market, but even there it is hard to imagine a prices anywhere near $2k per pound
Perhaps not an argument against, but certainly a 'reality' check argument against the "it's so obvious we should do it" mentality that seems to thrive in online forums.
Work is hard, let's go shopping. Is a poor argument. The real issue is the total difficulty of all issues not simply the number of them.
EX: A "major" issue is it's hard to detect if someone is currently under the effects of pot. Because, apparently drug test are designed to detect if you have smoked not if you are currently impaired. However, an officer can do a road side sobriety test without using a breatilizer so it's not a real issue.
Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
I don't see a problem. Pot use can be detected, sometimes days (or weeks) after. The law in most of europe is simple: If you're tested positive while driving then your license is gone.
My point is if you get high and are only impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours if you are not impared you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people.
The bioaccumulation idea was a separate issue; if smoking pot for 30 years turned people into zombies with an uncontrollable desire to eat brains then it should be illegal regardless of other negatives. (I could not think of any issues like this so I made something up for the sake of argument.)
PS: You can probably detect pot in the blood of 75% of Americans if you set your threshold low enough. (Second hand smoke from 2 blocks away etc.) That does not mean it's impossible to separate smokers from non smokers just you need to set a reasonable threshold and accept you might miss the occasional smoker.
My point is if you get high and are impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people.
Well, the tests are not that precise (yet), but it's the same with alcohol. You may very well be tested positive if you had been drunk the day before.
Imho that's just fair. If I want to smoke then leaving the keys at home for a few days seems reasonable. If I want to be a regular pot smoker then I shouldn't be driving anyways, as my reflexes are permanently reduced.
I can attest to the latter from experience, as I used to smoke quite a bit for a while. The longterm effect on concentration and memory have been fairly small, but definitely noticeable.
This is way out of my area of expert ease, but as I understand it alcohol tests are focused on the presence of alcohol because they are trying to see if someone is currently impaired. Pot tests are focused on metabolic waste products from Pot because the goal is to discover if someone has smoked in the past not if they are impaired. This is why at least one type of Pot test can get false positives from taking an over the counter pain killer as they both produce the same metabolic waste.
Anyway, as a non smoker I assumed Pot like most drugs had a fairly short term effect, if you are impaired for 3-7 days then that's a separate issue I was not aware of.
Bit surprised about the downvotes (some pot fanatic around? ;-) ).
FWIW, I've been smokin' quite a bit myself for a few years, I'm in no way against it.
I think your reasoning is not correct. I think the quick-tests go for the metabolic waste simply because there is no other reliable test short of taking your blood.
I've not been in the situation but I guess that blood test will take place before you actually lose the license, just like with alcohol.
Anyways, like I said, I know what I was like when I was smokin' frequently and anyone who does will probably agree that your overall performance is slightly reduced even a few days after. For that reason I'm okay with not allowing people to drive during a reasonable timespan.
I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.
I have a couple of pretty simple one (it's worth considering).
The long term affects of pot abuse are pretty easy to develop - I've seen medium-heavy users become fairly "brain dead" after several years of use. This is entirely from observation but it seems to occur faster than the same effect due to alcohol abuse. As a result we could see quite a few problems from more long term users.
It is also harder to determine if someone is under the influence. This would mean some industries would have to begin mandatory drug testing prior to performing sensitive work - random examples: doctors, pilots. That's costly, time consuming etc. And if the long term affects of the drug are as pronounced as I suspect you could see heavy abusers in those fields actually pass drug tests and still fail to concentrate at a critical moment.
It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
But this presumes that keeping it illegal prevents people from using it, and it clearly doesn't.
Mandatory drug tests are common already (Home Depot does drug tests on all employees -- don't you feel safer about hardware?) People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry.
>It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry.
Solid point. I can't disagree. Possibly the only issue worth raising is that cannabis influence may not be as physically obvious as those things you mention. For example a nurse may notice a brain surgeon is looking fatigued and raise concerns, but if on drugs his attention may wander at random moments which are not immediately obvious in the same way.
The most effective argument is that it is a "Gateway Drug". There is no proof that weed makes people use crack or heroin but it is a good way to scare the public.
Marijuana is a gateway drug to other illegal drugs because it itself is illegal. In order to get marijuana you need to go see a guy that is ALSO selling other drugs (the kind that are actually dangerous).
Legal marijuana makes it so that people don't start using more dangerous drugs on a whim. They are no longer presented with an easy opportunity.
If pot is on the same level as alcohol which do you think is more of a gateway drug? One that makes you introverted and cautious or one that makes you more confident while simultaneously impairing your judgement?
It's also a 'gateway drug' in that you don't go crazy and commit mass-murder when you try it the first time, so you start to disbelieve all of the anti-drug propaganda and maybe decide that 'they' were lying about the harder drugs too.
I was tempted to give one, but I don't think this is a good forum for discussing such a boring political issue. Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.
I'm new(ish) here, but I don't see why not. HN tends to have a much better atmosphere for serious discussion than most web forums I've seen. I'd be happy to hear both sides of this argument here, and hopefully to see more reasonable debate than what is usually presented.
It has a pleasant atmosphere in part because it mostly avoids inflammatory topics like politics. I'd much rather talk startups and business, and maybe living abroad with patio11, for instance, than discuss why he's a Republican and I'm not. The former is bound to be a useful, interesting discussion; the latter most likely not.
Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on an internet fourm.
>Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but your account is 49 days old...I'm not sure that you're at the "I get to tell people what sorts of discussions they're allowed to have" stage yet, especially not to people that have been here for almost three years.
Honestly? Not really. It's an open forum, I don't think it's really ever good form to tell somebody "hey, you're not supposed to talk about that here." (unless it's spam, in which case, just downvote. Saying "don't talk about that" is off-topic and has been specifically addressed by PG in the past.)
I'm sorry I didn't know that you had an alt account, it's just annoying when people start showing up and trying to dictate how things "should be" to established members of an existing community.
Growing something is easy. Growing a plant or plants healthy and robust enough for a decent harvest is far from easy unless you're already a farmer/grower.
"Growing a plant or plants healthy and robust enough for a decent harvest is far from easy ..."
You can cover up a multitude of sins using solvent extraction + chromatographic separation + blending. If legalization takes off, I suspect we will see the rise of blending conglomerates that assemble products for various tastes and purposes, like we see with whisky.
growing grapes is easy, but producing an amazing wine is hard, or more in the spirit of HN building a web app is pretty easy but building something people want is hard, I assume the same applies with weed.
It would be pretty lame if the Budweisers and Phillip Morris of the world come in and commoditize Marijuana, and it would put a major dent in some local California economies. But like a fine microbrew or boutique web shop there will always be a market for quality.
"Creative destruction can cause temporary economic distress. Layoffs of workers with obsolete working skills can be one price of new innovations valued by consumers. Though a continually innovating economy generates new opportunities for workers to participate in more creative and productive enterprises (provided they can acquire the necessary skills), creative destruction can cause severe hardship in the short term, and in the long term for those who cannot acquire the skills and work experience.
However, in the long-term society as a whole (including the descendants of those that experienced short-term hardship) enjoys a rise in overall quality of life due to the accumulation of innovation - for example, 90% of Americans were farmers in 1790, while 2.6% of Americans were farmers in 1990[9]. Over those 200 years farm jobs were destroyed by exponential productivity gains in agricultural technology and replaced by jobs in new industries. Present day farmers and non-farmers alike enjoy much more prosperous lifestyles than their counterparts in 1790."
In the article they explain it is more like wine than a standard commodity. After legalization you will end up with everything from cheap mass produced quality up to artisan award winning products with a wide range of prices.
I can personally vouch for at least 1 individual who isn't smoking now but would certain be interested if it was legal. Unfortunately, I err.. I mean "this individual" doesn't live in California. :-(
