cannabisnews.com: State's Untapped Pot of Gold 





State's Untapped Pot of Gold 
Posted by FoM on March 01, 2002 at 07:07:15 PT
By David Lazarus
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
With the state Legislature's chief budget analyst saying that California is now $17.5 billion in the red, only two choices exist to get us out of this fix: deep cuts in spending or finding new revenue sources. Perhaps it's time for serious consideration to be given to legalizing California's biggest cash crop -- marijuana. I know, I know. Just bringing up the topic is going to set alarm bells ringing in some quarters. 
Let's try to contain our emotions for just a minute and look at this issue from a purely public-policy and economic perspective. Pot advocates say it has already been found to have medical benefits. In 1996, voters statewide approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. But higher-ups in Washington have since decided that federal anti-drug laws take precedence over state measures and are thus cracking down on organizations that seek to make life easier for people with AIDS, cancer or other ailments. Beyond the clear medical advantages, though, pot could have an enormous impact on the struggling California economy, provided the feds allowed the state to go down that road. A 1998 report by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws determined that American dope growers earn more than $15 billion annually on the wholesale market. Only corn, soybeans and hay are more profitable cash crops. The annual marijuana crop in California is worth about $4 billion, the organization found, making it the state's single-most-lucrative agricultural resource -- more than the production value of grapes and almonds combined. Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economist at the University of California at Davis, noted that a considerable portion of pot's current cash value lies in its illegal status. Buyers are forced to subsidize growers' security measures. Sumner said marijuana's status as the state's largest cash crop would almost certainly come to an end under legalization as growing costs fall in line with similar crops, such as tobacco. As a revenue source, however, he said dope could have a profound impact on state coffers. Like tobacco, legalized marijuana could be expected to be sold retail with hefty taxes attached. Sumner speculated that as much as a 1,000 percent tax on marijuana might be levied to keep retail costs sufficiently high and thus deter use by minors. "It makes more sense to tax things than to ban them," he said. "You generate revenue and you give people an incentive to behave the way we want." Sheri Larsen, a spokeswoman for the California Board of Equalization, said that if an 8 percent sales tax were levied on a $4 billion marijuana crop, the state would take in an extra $317 million a year. But that number is only a fraction of the revenue that would be expected if Sumner is correct about a whopping dope tax. The 87-cents-per-pack tax on cigarettes, for example, produced $1.1 billion in revenue for California last year. If the almost 53 percent tax now levied on cigars and other tobacco products were applied to a $4 billion marijuana crop, this would result in $2. 1 billion in revenue. Of course, no law or tax by itself is going to keep kids from experimenting with forbidden fruit. Researchers at Columbia University reported last week that teenagers now account for about a quarter of all alcohol consumed in the United States. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says marijuana use by teens has leveled off. About 15 percent of eighth-graders, 33 percent of 10th-graders and 37 percent of 12th-graders tried pot last year, the department found. Yet those who argue that keeping marijuana illegal keeps it out of the hands of youngsters should look at the health department's statistics for cigarette use. About 12 percent of eighth-graders, 21 percent of 10th-graders and nearly 30 percent of 12th-graders smoked cigarettes last year -- almost identical levels as marijuana use. Kind of makes you wonder if teens would smoke even less dope if some of the mystique of the drug were stripped away by decriminalization. As for adults, a nationwide poll in December by Zogby International found that in light of post-Sept. 11 security concerns, 61 percent oppose arresting and jailing nonviolent marijuana smokers. It is, of course, a stretch to think that lawmakers, either at the state or federal level, would risk their political necks on an issue like this. You can just imagine how they'd get pounded by conservatives. Robert MacCoun, a professor of public policy and law at the University of California at Berkeley, spent 10 years studying worldwide drug policies. He concluded in the book "Drug War Heresies" (co-authored with economist Peter Reuter) that removing penalties for marijuana does not lead to increased use. The only way use of legalized pot would significantly increase, MacCoun told me, would be if dope smoking was aggressively promoted by profit-hungry corporations, a la the tobacco industry. If advertising could be restricted, he said, "it's hard to show social harm from widespread marijuana use." Me, I'm kind of conflicted. I don't do drugs anymore -- haven't for many years -- but I did smoke pot back in college, and must say I enjoyed it quite a bit. I never regarded dope as anywhere near as harmful or dangerous as alcohol or cigarettes, and certainly nowhere in the same league as harder drugs. It's only a matter of time, though, before my young son confronts the temptations of the world, and I have to be honest when I say I'd prefer he didn't mess with any mood-altering substances. I'm not yet sure what I'm going to tell him. But I do agree with UC Davis' Sumner that taxation and regulation are far more effective tools than prohibition in keeping people from indulging in vices. Keeping marijuana illegal just doesn't make sense. And for a state that grows tons of it, and which can't pay its bills, legalization might at last be a very smart move indeed. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: David LazarusPublished: Friday, March 1, 2002 Copyright: 2002 San Francisco Chronicle - Page B - 1Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/CannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on March 03, 2002 at 09:06:50 PT:
supply and demand
The economics of the situation are similar to a Seifeld episode where a postal worker tries to bring recycled bottles to an area where the same bottles bring more value (10 cents in Maine, for example)It turns out it would cost you about the same (especially including bust factor) for you to travel from Detroit to Texas and score cheap brick schwag. 
If you are disciplined, you can the reasonable equivalent from exepnsive stuff grown locally, just use tiny amounts, it's healthier anyway.
Wage Drug Peace 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Dan B on March 02, 2002 at 15:18:18 PT:
Let me break this down . . .
First of all, the main reason why most of us want to make cannabis legal and regulated is that it is wrong to put people in cages for smoking some weed. Aside from that, here is an explanation of why cannabis will be cheaper in a legal system, even if it is taxed.The only way the government would keep the cost high is if it wants to maintain the black market. The government cannot undermine a black market that sells at the same price it does. No, in order for legalization to work, the government would have to set the price with tax substantially lower than typical market prices under prohibition. Otherwise, the entire purpose behind legalizing (destruction of the black market) would fail miserably. Black markets exist when legal markets either cease to exist (as is the case now) or fail to compete with black market prices. Legalized cannabis would also be cheaper because the average person could grow his or her own for a fraction of the current cost per ounce. Many people grow their own now not because they don't want to hassle with using a dealer, but because in the long run it is far cheaper to grow your own than to buy it retail from a dealer. And if the legal price of cannabis is too high, your dealer can grow it him- or herself and sell it to you at a profit (but still considerably less than the legal market prices)--thereby undercutting the legal market and establishing a black market. In short, legalized weed would have to be cheap enough to compete with legalized cultivation. Given these factors, the price of cannabis would drop considerably under legalization. To artificially inflate the price of cannabis would be counterproductive and stupid.I hope this clears up my reasoning on the matter.Dan B(By the way, $65-$70 an O cannabis can be found in West Texas). 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by blaze on March 02, 2002 at 09:12:19 PT
TO DAN B 
I live in the D (MI)where you at 65 an O Im there in fiveP.S if the state did legalize pot don't u think they would want to make money and with legal it would be a resource therfor they can freeze the price then add tax then life would suck
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Dan B on March 01, 2002 at 22:33:52 PT:
goneposthole / blaze
goneposthole: I like the fact that you figured out the potential number of people smoking weed, but I think your numbers may be faulty due to an inflated "per ounce" figure. Reality is that the average person pays the minimum he or she can per ounce, and that's a lot less than $200. In fact, around here you'd be hard-pressed to find it for more than $90 per ounce--and it's usually closer to $65 an o. Kind is kind, but most people choose brick weed for economic reasons.Having said that, you could likely double your number for "regular marijuana smokers" and be closer to the truth. And don't get me wrong--my intention is not to slam your math (which is just fine), but to arrive at a less conservative figure for "regular cannabis smokers." As to blaze: you seem to be forgetting the fact that prohibition itself raises the price of cannabis by (extremely conservatively here) about a factor of about 20 (in other words, that same ounce goneposthole might pay $200 for under prohibition would likely cost about $10 if legal and untaxed). Add a 500% tax, and it's still only $60 an ounce for $200 weed. So, no you would not be paying more if weed were legalized and taxed heavily.Also by the way--where do you live that people are still selling dime bags? I haven't heard that term applied to cannabis since the mid-1980s. Even a cheap 1/2 ounce costs about $45. No offense intended--I'd just like to know where the inexpensive cannabis can be found.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by blaze on March 01, 2002 at 21:58:20 PT
DO YOU WANT TO PAY TAXS
I have a hard time geting ten for a dime I don't want to pay an extra 1.40$ ! so I guss Im gonna have to stuff the balled box (if it dose come to vote) and I will and so will the dealer's I mean look at cigarettis the tax's will start at 14% then 25% and so on and so on till you can afford to buy the pot you want so much it better to take the risk of geting stop wit it taxs suck allready why pay more on the stuff you enjoyP.S I do love my tree's JDZ
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by goneposthole on March 01, 2002 at 20:22:58 PT
oops, missed by a factor of 10
that would be 75,000,000 ounces and 6.25 million regular marijuana smokers.The arithmetic was wrong in the other post. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Jose Melendez on March 01, 2002 at 18:14:31 PT:
Pat Lynch was asked: What if drugs were legal?
"I see a nation where the government listens to the people, who are free of unreasonable searches, dehumanizing drug tests, racial profiling, drive-by shootings, swarms of dope-dealing predators, the DEA and assorted pinhead bureaucrats." 
US AR: OPED: Imagine A World With Legal Drugs
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by goneposthole on March 01, 2002 at 16:25:26 PT
15 billion dollars wholesale
It is a sizable sum.15,000,000,000 divided by 200 dolares per ounce wholesale is 750,000,000 ounces of weed.At 12 ounces per year per partaker, the number of imbibers is (750,000,000 ounces divided by 12) 
62,500,000 in the United States of America.See, people do know how to have fun.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by p4me on March 01, 2002 at 11:50:42 PT
I am too loose with facts
In message 8 I said that there was some electonic billboard. It may be the BBC homepage for all I know. And instead of saying 70,000 prisoners in the UK, I should have said in Wales and England. And instead of saying man in charge, I should have said board of governors. Just because I am loose with the facts, please do not confuse me with a prohibitionist.Here is the link itself:http://212.129.240.114/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2181Greenfox, I have come to a new appreciation of your reform efforts in the last 12 hours. You the man.VAAI
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by p4me on March 01, 2002 at 11:30:40 PT
reduce expenses
With the state Legislature's chief budget analyst saying that California is now $17.5 billion in the
   red, only two choices exist to get us out of this fix: deep cuts in spending or finding new revenue
   sources. That is one big deficit. The suprising thing about California is that they spend more on their prison system than on education. That is a hard thing to do because the largest part of county property taxes and the biggest part of state budgets is almost always education. In NC it is by far the biggest state and local expenditures. Maybe they should consider scaling back the prison sentences for cannabis related charges. The prohibitionist would use the word crime instead of charges, whereas I would say the real crime would be the state making and prosecution MJ charges.At the DE messageboard Nol put up a picture of some famous lighted electronic billboard where they flash the news about like the famous one at Times Square in New York. In yet another thread calling to let Colin Davies go free, he posted the message flashing saying that the (federal)prison system had reached 70,000 and its capacity was only 71,000. The man in charge of that system said they were going to have to quit sending people in for the small drug crimes because there is no room for the real criminals. With 40 states having financial problems some states are going to figure out that it is way to expensive to incarcerate MJ users and let them out. The states have to do something because many of them have state laws requiring a balanced budget unlike the federal government that can grow the national debt. Jay Leno said something about the California primary being this week. It sure would be nice if the people of California set a record of defeating incumbents in a primary. It would send a strong message that the people can find new leadership and do fine without the bastards that are protecting the MJ prohibition laws. Please vote against the incumbent and let some new people into politics and send the message to the entrenched incumbents that the voters are quite capable of untrenching them in this war for freedom.There will be a second coffeehouse open in the UK in Bournemouth in just a few days. The owner will be a guy named Jimmy Ward. That marijuana sure makes governments say and do stupid things. That stuff is dangerous. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on March 01, 2002 at 11:08:37 PT
to behave the way we want
I wouldn't want them to do anything that would impose on others.For me to behave the way they want me to behave is absurd.Charlie Manson had people behave the way he wanted them to behave. He simply told them what to do, and they did it. He imposed his will to manipulate their behavior. He brainwashed them. Way to go, Charlie.The state is no different. They are more meddlesome and nefarious than Charlie Manson.The old Golden Rule applies here: Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself.Legalize marijuana and leave people alone, for God's sake and for our own.The only way to make any sense of it is to legalize; nothing else will do.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on March 01, 2002 at 10:46:54 PT
That economic perspective
Let's try to contain our emotions for just a minute and look at this issue from a purely public-policy and economic perspective.But asset forfeiture is a purely economic perspective, and that's the one that law enforcement is looking from.They don't care about what money the rest of the state has, as long as they get theirs.Aso, it's a recession. There aren't a lot of jobs around for ex-drug agents, and they aren't going to dismantle their whole industry and their whole way of making a living just because of some petty issues of democracy or human rights or the ability of the rest of the government to function.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by lookinside on March 01, 2002 at 09:24:33 PT:
California...
My mother's family has been here since 1870. California has mostly been ahead of the curve for a very long time. I'd love to see outright legalization. The DEA wouldn't have time to bother sick people. They'd be far too busy trying to get a conviction from ANY jury here, for posession or cultivation. Some day they will be forced to realize that Californians would prefer legalization. We are tired of more prisons, more cops, and glutted courts where a plea bargain can reduce the sentence of REAL(violent) criminals to a slap on the wrist, just to keep the system moving.It's time to reverse the trend. Instead of making more laws and more criminals, We need to get rid of ill advised laws against personal choices that do no harm to others.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by null on March 01, 2002 at 09:13:12 PT
marijuana is medicine
in another thread p4me had mentioned people writing "Marijuanna is Medicine" on money. I found a sight that has an interesting collection of money with stamped sayings.
"I Grew Hemp" says George on your $1 bill.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Toker00 on March 01, 2002 at 09:02:10 PT
All I have to say is,
WHAT GREENFOX SAID.Peace. Realize, then Legalize.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by greenfox on March 01, 2002 at 08:16:41 PT
Here's the key, folks, read carefully!
"It makes more sense to tax things than to ban them," he said. "You generate revenue and you give people an incentive to behave the way we want."There is is, right in black and white. This isn't a war about keeping Amerika's "children" safe at all. It is about raising good-patriotic childun and teach them not to question their puritan/neo-Christian ways, (not saying there is anything wrong with Christianity, but...) ENOUGH! IF I want to put a sacred plant in my body, or eat mushrooms, or drink gasoline, or blow coke, or shoot smack, or even eat my own shit, I SHOULD BE ALLOWED! The only time I should be prohibited from ANY of this is if I hurt another person. Smoke a bowl of crack in your house? Sure, it's not safe, but it's not the government's business. Smoke a bowl of crack and then go out and drive and kill somebody? THEN it's the government's business. HANG the bastards, and I'd be the first to support this sort of thing. I don't support the errosion of our free rights, however. I don't support neo-christians telling me how to eat, shit, and breathe.
 
Enough, I say. Isn't tbe absurdity of not being allowed to POSSESS A SEED gotten to anyone else yet? I am near insanity in my ravings, but my intents are as pure as snow. I may tell you what I think, but never would I force you to "think like me". That's what we call free choice. Even "God" says in the bible that man is to be judged by man's laws on earth, and by God's in heaven. I am not trying to put a religious tint on things, but seriously, GOD GAVE US CHOICE FOR A REASON. Don't prohibit that choice. If pot is truly evil, let GOD sort it out AFTER we die. AMEN.sig,fik,
-gf
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by null on March 01, 2002 at 08:13:17 PT
dream big
i've said the same about my state - where cotton was once king. the entire economics of the state could change overnight and take us from being one of the poorest states to being well-off.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment