|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. Look at the taxes on cigarettes, I'm pretty sure more than 1/2 cost is taxes. I'm also pretty sure they would tax weed at least as much as tobacco.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
Why would the price of weed matter? We're likely not talking about sales tax, but more like what goes on with cigarettes, a 'sin' tax above and beyond sales that could be any arbitrary amount.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. From spending billions of tax revenue locking up people and enforcing marijuana laws to even only millions in tax revenue would be pretty drat good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Local governments won't be able to keep the money from any raids if the local courts keep tossing the cases out. Cigs and booze are taxed to poo poo as it is, taxes are a huge boon for local governments. Raising sin taxes is the easiest thing and marijuana is just a whole new untapped revenue stream. At some point there will be a drop in consumption as the price rises but I can't imagine production cost will be much different from tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 07:59
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. This is good because you could add a flat tax based on quantity and no one would complain because it would still be cheaper than it was before. Someone who was paying 300 dollars is not going to care that a 25 dollar tax was added if the price drops to 10 dollars because now they are paying 35 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. I think retail taxes would be similar to alcohol and tobacco and wouldn't necessarily be based on the actual price of marijuana. Another thing to consider is with the current black and grey markets associated with marijuana, there are tens of thousands of employers and workers involved in production, distribution and sales not paying taxes on income and not paying into social programs like Medicare, Social Security or unemployment and disability insurance. When marijuana is legalized, those employers and workers become enfranchised and it's easier to ensure they're paying taxes. States could also generate revenue through regulatory fees and fines in addition to retail taxes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Where does the assumption that prices will drop astronomically if fully legal come from? There's definitely price gouging due to the illegal nature of the industry, but even at that pot is a more cost effective intoxicant than alcohol*. It's not significantly cheaper in the handful of places where it is legal. Producing a quantity of extremely high quality pot is labor intensive, and the labor demand grows at close to a linear rate as you scale up the operation past a certain point. As someone who likes weed, I look forward to seeing more variety in genetics and end products, but I've never thought that even the rosiest legalization scenarios would result in a drastic price reduction, I'd love to be wrong and find myself in a world where I can get a gram of trainwreck for a buck fifty, but I don't see it happening. If I was legally allowed to grow a few plants and sell you the results I would, but if that meant selling you ounces for $50, I'd just keep it all for myself because I value my time a lot more than that. *I just did a bunch of math and convinced myself that I'm correct in this assertion. They are made up numbers but there was a lot of  research involved, so I will defend them to anyone who wants to talk about that in more detail. I worked this from both ends, comparing high-grade pot to good alcohol as well as schwag to plastic 1.75s of Mr. Boston, and I factored in fuzziness to account for wide variations in local price.lightpole posted:At some point there will be a drop in consumption as the price rises Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
spengler posted:Where does the assumption that prices will drop astronomically if fully legal come from? Because marijuana is about as cheap to grow as tobacco and tobacco is dirt cheap even with all the taxes on it. And existing growers won't be able to hold a business cartel approach to keep prices high with corporate growers coming in and able to undercut them massively while still making mad dolla.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Huh? I was under the impression that tobacco is not easy to grow and while growing marijuana is less difficult growing good marijuana is not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Huh? I was under the impression that tobacco is not easy to grow and while growing marijuana is less difficult growing good marijuana is not. Tobacco is pretty easy to grow. Especially for a big corporation with money. Also "good" marijuana is completely subjective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Growing quality cannabis is fairly easy these days. There's a ton of equipment available, large web communities devoted to growing, and good seeds are easy to come by. It was a bit different before the internet - harder to get good seeds and materials - but now it's not that hard. If you can follow a recipe you can grow good pot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Also "good" marijuana is completely subjective. Ahh yes, let's be obtuse for the sake of it. There are definitely well agreed upon differences between something good and something bad. Growing quality cannabis is pretty easy in the sense that a lot of information and resources are out there if you go looking. Basically what Broken Machine said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
This stuff doesn't even look that terrible though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
spengler posted:Where does the assumption that prices will drop astronomically if fully legal come from? There's definitely price gouging due to the illegal nature of the industry, but even at that pot is a more cost effective intoxicant than alcohol*[...] Growing pot IS simpler than brewing alcohol. However, growing and curing really good pot gets into the leagues of fine wine making as far as difficulty and expertise go. Any schmuck can throw a few bag seeds in his half-assed back yard garden and hope for the best. He may luck out and get a crop of really prime cannabis. Odds are against that scenario, though. SWIM has grown some pretty decent weeds recently, but we had some lab work done on samples. So far it's maxing out around 14-15%, and while decent that isn't in the same league as the real pros. Then there's the expert curing. The cure makes all of the difference in the high end material. Nobody wants herb that smells like an alfalfa bale. To hell with it, though. Hash it out and we'll be smoking stuff comparable to the old school blonde Lebanese routinely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:36
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Ahh yes, let's be obtuse for the sake of it. There are definitely well agreed upon differences between something good and something bad. Growing quality cannabis is pretty easy in the sense that a lot of information and resources are out there if you go looking. Basically what Broken Machine said. Your personal preferences are nice and all but there's absolutely no reason acceptable quality weed needs to be expensive. Also it'd be rather unlikely for the big corporations to be selling unprocessed weed instead of some nicely consistent prepackaged stuff. With different pricing tiers for different grades just like tobacco. Beaters posted:Growing pot IS simpler than brewing alcohol. However, growing and curing really good pot gets into the leagues of fine wine making as far as difficulty and expertise go. Any schmuck can throw a few bag seeds in his half-assed back yard garden and hope for the best. He may luck out and get a crop of really prime cannabis. Odds are against that scenario, though. SWIM has grown some pretty decent weeds recently, but we had some lab work done on samples. So far it's maxing out around 14-15%, and while decent that isn't in the same league as the real pros. You have your specialty microbrews for beer and then you have Bud Light which sells billions every year and most people are totally fine with. Similarly you can get a jug of hobo wine or you can get some real fancy great pro grade vintage. It's going to be the same kind of thing with weed when it gets fully legalized.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:This stuff doesn't even look that terrible though. It is when compared to the crystal perfection in the other example, and this is probably where I should stop being a pot snob. Still that is a big part of consumer culture, if you don't even know what the hell good is, bad can seem like fine wine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You have your specialty microbrews for beer and then you have Bud Light which sells billions every year and most people are totally fine with. Similarly you can get a jug of hobo wine or you can get some real fancy great pro grade vintage. It's going to be the same kind of thing with weed when it gets fully legalized. Yeah this. These conversations about how it's hard to grow weed are dumb as hell. It's not hard to grow weed. I know because I've met a ton of people who do it and they aren't exactly graduate level botanists if you know what I mean. It's like talking about how hard and expensive it is to grow tobacco by only looking at high-end cigar makers. I mean, yeah, smoking would be crazy expensive if everything was a Partagas Serie P. But there is a huge market for cheap, "does the job" weed and mj products. You don't need the dankest of the dank to make weed butter to bake cookies, for instance. Prices will drop considerably with legalization, at least for common grade stuff which will probably be the majority of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Yeah this. These conversations about how it's hard to grow weed are dumb as hell. It's not hard to grow weed. I know because I've met a ton of people who do it and they aren't exactly graduate level botanists if you know what I mean. It's like talking about how hard and expensive it is to grow tobacco by only looking at high-end cigar makers. I mean, yeah, smoking would be crazy expensive if everything was a Partagas Serie P. But there is a huge market for cheap, "does the job" weed and mj products. You don't need the dankest of the dank to make weed butter to bake cookies, for instance. Prices will drop considerably with legalization, at least for common grade stuff which will probably be the majority of it. The thing is that pot is effectively rated based on potency (dankness), and based on that measure, those industrial producers won't just be growing decent weed - they can grow a lot of very good pot very cheaply with a handful of trained and experienced botanists and horticulturalists overseeing a large operation, once all that is legal. It's a specialized science, yes, but nothing that cannot be standardized, mechanized, and turned into an industrial system. This is especially true since THC content is an objective measure, and that is something that will fly through the roof once R&D is more than what amounts to a bunch of enthusiasts e-mailing each other. I personally cannot wait until the first genetically modified strains start sprouting. That's not to say there won't be be specialty growers, as everyone else is quick to point out. These guys will end up like vintners, talking up how the acidity of the soil affects the aftertaste of an indica to the handful of people who have developed the taste to know the difference, but it will be more difficult for specialty growers to maintain a competitive edge when it comes to who has the dankest nugs around. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
spengler posted:Where does the assumption that prices will drop astronomically if fully legal come from? There's definitely price gouging due to the illegal nature of the industry, but even at that pot is a more cost effective intoxicant than alcohol*. It's not significantly cheaper in the handful of places where it is legal. Producing a quantity of extremely high quality pot is labor intensive, and the labor demand grows at close to a linear rate as you scale up the operation past a certain point. You can't argue for a high price and cheap weed for everyone at the same time. The price will drop because there is a market with money behind it. If RJR or MO decide it isn't for them there will be some mid sized growers who step in and figure it out. Tobacco has huge profit margins and weed won't be much different, maybe different regulation. If the price goes too high people will grow their own and there will be a reduction in sales. The same thing happens with sin taxes on substances that are more addictive. Large tax increases can drive sales down. Edit: Sorry I phrased that wrong. You are saying high prices will remain but something that is simple to produce cant stay at a premium of people can just grow their own. lightpole fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
I mean seriously like right now I'm picturing that marijuana is fully legalized and RJ Reynolds comes to market. Packs of pre-made weed cigs. Standardized chunks of processed weed to load into smoking implement or vaporizer in reliable "dosages" and sizes. Possibly even mass produced edibles. Economies of scale and not having to hide poo poo from the cops means big time cash.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 05:43
|
|
|
Aside from economies of scale and legitimate production attracting skilled labor, legalized marijuana would also drive down prices with better distribution and competition. Black market distribution carries a lot of inefficiencies which inflate prices. Supply chain problems cause dealers to run out of product or get inconsistent product. Dealers might be hesitant to accept new clients because of potential risk. Dealers resist undercutting prices because they need large margins to compensate for inherent legal and extralegal risks. With legalized marijuana, producers can safely create stockpiles to buffer supply disruptions, producers would always seek more customers through advertising, branding and price reductions, and thinner profit margins would be acceptable because much of the uncertainty would be removed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2012 06:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. Estimated revenue from state (including DC) and federal government taxes on alcohol is $6 billion per year. Note that alcohol is not heavily taxed in most states. You're not going to fund a government through vice taxes (unless you have a semi-monopoly on vice, like Nevada). Still, the revenue would be important to states and, where they share in the revenue, municipal governments. Tobacco is much more heavily taxed than alcohol. Annual state/federal revenue exceeds $17 billion. Alcohol - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399 Tobacco - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403 Another heavily taxed vice in my state (PA) is limited casino gambling. The state takes in around $3.75 billion a year (most from slots) and local governments receive about $500 million. Total taxes on casino gambling here are 55% of gross gambling profit. The state gets 34% (which is earmarked for property tax relief only) and local governments receive 4%. 12% goes to horse racing and 5% to economic development and tourism promotion. http://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/?p=52
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 00:34
|
|
|
For pricing - can't we just look at the legal medical marijuana industry and work from that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:For pricing - can't we just look at the legal medical marijuana industry and work from that? Those have extra costs incurred by it not being wholly legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Just as an aside in regards to the DEA having the resources to go after cultivators. They don't. Because they fully know that even if they do, the black market is always there and will instantly fill in any voids. Not to say they aren't dumb enough to try, but cultivators are generally pretty smart. They know how to hide operations, even in a legal framework. And the pricing of herb as far as I see for the end user won't go down that much honestly, if you look at average consumption between tobacco/alcohol/weed, the average cannabis user spends about as much on his drug as the other do yearly. Your mexi-brick quality poo poo will become more available, thus you'll have breaks simply because scale comes in, but quality medicine will always find a market, even if it's a slightly less legal market. Exporting to other states isn't going to stop overnight. And in regards to growing quality cannabis, anyone can grow good quality medicine with relatively few resources on a small scale. In the same way a personal micro-brewer will have an amazing batch every once in a while and his friends can share in his creation. But scaling up cannabis production and maintaining quality is difficult. Large scale hydroponics and indoor cultivation is just starting to become a thing, despite the equipment being available since the mid-70s. Most of the equipment currently available is still kids poo poo in terms of it's ability to allow you to scale up. I've seen this personally happen, the owner ended up entering a different market of slightly discounted product as he simply was not able to maintain the level of quality he used to have on a smaller scale.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Morphix posted:But scaling up cannabis production and maintaining quality is difficult. Large scale hydroponics and indoor cultivation is just starting to become a thing, despite the equipment being available since the mid-70s. Most of the equipment currently available is still kids poo poo in terms of it's ability to allow you to scale up. Now imagine he has dozens of square miles of open field in a good climate to grow on and doesn't have to hide his crop ever. Also he can legally hire a bunch of skilled workers. Don't you think that'd make it more than a little bit easier to grow the good stuff in quantity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
I'd think for most casual users, the main selling point on mass produced weed would be that you could get your hands on it without dealing with potheads. Never mind what it costs, it would be nicely packaged, portioned and sold over a clean counter. I also don't see why quality would be too hard for mass production, considering that most weed in the US (as far as I know) is of low quality anyway and that's good enough for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Now imagine he has dozens of square miles of open field in a good climate to grow on and doesn't have to hide his crop ever. Also he can legally hire a bunch of skilled workers. Don't you think that'd make it more than a little bit easier to grow the good stuff in quantity? Outdoor weed sucks. Weed is expensive e because it takes lots of energy and expensive fertilizers to grow *well*. Nobody in California or Colorado is smoking Mexican dirt weed anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Outdoor weed sucks. Weed is expensive e because it takes lots of energy and expensive fertilizers to grow *well*. Nobody in California or Colorado is smoking Mexican dirt weed anymore. What's funny is that there is even some weed being smuggled from America into Mexico now because of the lack of high quality domestic weed in Mexico.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 09:08
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Outdoor weed sucks. Weed is expensive e because it takes lots of energy and expensive fertilizers to grow *well*. Nobody in California or Colorado is smoking Mexican dirt weed anymore. Couple things, outdoor cultivation has been getting much better over the years, Northern California's yearly crop floods the states. This is the majority of your high quality weed that on avg you're smoking. Simply from numbers, especially say if you're in the state of Washington. Dispeneries up here regurarly stock Northern Californias outdoor crop because you can get pounds for $1400-1800 and simply pay a small fee for someone to deliver those to you. But outdoor simply can't beat indoor because you don't have to fight elements/pests in the same way you do in the outdoors. The plant has the potential to look and smell much prettier. Doesn't mean it will be the majority of the time. From the amount of new growers, people are just now starting to realize there is a difference between low quality weed and high quality weed. I'd reckon the average person hasn't had a chance to really cross-shop varities/strains/breeders, because even the dispeneries will lies all day long about their product. And people in California and Colorado still smoke mexi bricks, there is a market for it in poor communities for example, where you can get a QP of the poo poo for as little as $400. And since this market tends to smoke blunts more often, they lend themselves to each other. Think of Mexi-Bricks as your Camel of Weed. It's the bottom of the barrel but it does the trick if consumed in large enough quantities. And sometimes that's all you have access too. You'd be surprised by how many people in California still only know of weed as 'work' (meaning avg) and 'fire' (meaning something better than work). Morphix fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'd think for most casual users, the main selling point on mass produced weed would be that you could get your hands on it without dealing with potheads. Never mind what it costs, it would be nicely packaged, portioned and sold over a clean counter. One of the less-acknowledged ill effects of the War on Drugs is that it forces otherwise law-abiding citizens who wouldn't normally have any contact with the criminal underground culture to have that contact if they want weed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
Also in comparing weed taxes to alcohol or tobacco, shouldn't you factor in the addictiveness of the last two? I would think weed consumption in units per person will be nowhere near that of cigarettes or particularly alcohol, based partly on potency (ie. you need a lot less for the desired effect), and because of the type of effects. You aren't going to get pack-a-day smokers going on smoke breaks getting high. Similarly, people aren't necessarily going to start bingeing on the weekends, spending hundreds on a night out. The average smoker is going to continue smoking the equivalent of half a pack or less per week of weed cigarettes after work. In some ways, you might expect a drastic decrease in the THC content of commercially successful weed, or a move to cannabis/tobacco blends because people don't necessarily want to get high as balls, they might want something they can smoke comfortably in a social environment. That's without considering that minimising costs is a priority for most legal drug users, and that is a lot easier with cannabis than tobacco or alcohol. The barrier between what someone is willing to pay versus effort required to grow it is way less, so the margin for price gouging is less. Plus taxing something with legitimate long term or societal health benefits and medical applications is going to pose a problem for implementing a 'sin' tax. Are people with legitimate health problems going to be able to apply for tax exemptions? As was mentioned earlier, the big money maker is going to be hemp, and that hardly deserves to attract any sin tax whatsoever. And it's reasonable to expect there will be enforcement issues discriminating hemp produced for fibre from that produced for THC when it is being grown all over the place. Flaky fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:One of the less-acknowledged ill effects of the War on Drugs is that it forces otherwise law-abiding citizens who wouldn't normally have any contact with the criminal underground culture to have that contact if they want weed. I thought this was one of the main problems, though? The common person will look at anyone who partakes in this stuff and assume them to be one of several possible Bad Person stereotypes, simply based on the fact that it's illegal and almost none of the people they know have done it. Now that you have the Y Generation voting power - people who know the stuff is about as harmful as alcohol, if not less so - it's becoming more possible to abolish the idea that weed is inherently a bad thing, which is the major obstacle to legalization. If you asked me 3 years ago if I'd smoke pot, I would tell you that I'd never do the stuff out of some confused idea of morality. At this point, with more knowledge on the matter, I would be more than willing if both the social stigma and illegality didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 13:10
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:One of the less-acknowledged ill effects of the War on Drugs is that it forces otherwise law-abiding citizens who wouldn't normally have any contact with the criminal underground culture to have that contact if they want weed. You think most pot smokers are cruising the inner city picking up dime bags from gang bangers? That happens at times but it's not the normal method, despite what the drug warriors on the TV will tell you. Most people buy drugs from completely normal people within their social circle, especially pot, we aren't talking about crack. But you scan source drugs from upper middle class yuppies pretty easily. Andrew Sullivan actually wrote about this (cannibis closet I think), where all sorts of high level people he knew in DC were getting stoned left and right, everybody knows, just nobody talks about it. Lawyers, doctors, whatever. The actual "criminal culture" element to it is pretty non existent. Unless you're buying bulk, you're probably just dealing with another middle class mow the lawn and golf type.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
/\/\ This is very much true, when I used to be a sack dealer, one of the ways I was successful was because I was white and clean cut looking, also wore a nice looking cheap suit when I visited office buildings with my vacuumed packed goodies. You'd be blown away how quickly tech companies would lose a majority of their employees if they ever started drug testing. You'd visit one or two guys every other week with couple ozs, and they'd break them down amongst their friends, basically getting their amount close-to-free and their friends with enough money to throw around were happy to be dealing with someone they know. The employees doing this never thought of themselves as dealers even though they pretty much were. My favorite was always visiting the lawyers downtown though, something about that transaction always made me feel powerful, like mang, look at me doing this thing. Goddamn. Of course those assholes are always wanting something more fun for the weekend, and I refused to carry other products so those contacts eventually moved on. Lawyers, especially new lawyers, loving love the coke. That stereotype exists for a reason. Flaky posted:In some ways, you might expect a drastic decrease in the THC content of commercially successful weed, or a move to cannabis/tobacco blends because people don't necessarily want to get high as balls, they might want something they can smoke comfortably in a social environment. THC isn't the be all end of of important chemicals inside cannabis. The more we learn about the drug, the more we learn the chemicals work in a very complimentary way. I specialize in unique strains, and you'd be surprised what's really out there in terms of varieties of highs. I have this one strain that I poo poo you not, is the adderall of weed. You simply can't smoke enough of it to get you to goto sleep. Many a nights I've stayed up trying with friends, only to be greeted by the loving sun after a long night of chatting and videogames. It's also the only strain I'll smoke if I'm drinking, because that whole alcohol before weed addage flies completely out the window. You never get the spins, for some odd reason the poo poo actually perks you up after you've drank too much. Almost like you took 1-2mgs of adderall. It's the strain that really opened up my eyes to the range of effects cannabis can have on people. Because before that I had really just hosed with haze varieties of sativas and mostly kush indicas. As do most people, whether they know it or not. The majority of their strains are born from the haze/kush* families from the 70s. We are just now starting to see really unique crosses and hybrids after the seed clamp down in the late 80's early 90s. There simply wasn't enough people doing genetics work, because you need a large facilities and hundreds of copies of the same plant to isolate for specific traits. Some really exciting stuff is actually coming from Isreali medical facilities, in fact the Vancouver chap whose responsible for God Bud, Blueberry and others, has recently partnered with Israeli to come up with the High Times strain winner. I've heard good things about it's commercial viability. Who knows what the experience is like though. *The best way to describe a haze high in my opinion, is think of a classic sativa high, it's slightly energetic and makes your mind race on the come up. But just as it gets there, you brain is sorounded by a thick haze of not being able to think all that well. You're alert, but feel dumb. The best way to describe a classic kush indica, is the comfortable, relaxed feeling people often associate with weed. Kush is the opiate of weed. It's not necessarily make you goto sleep, but you certainly aren't going to be doing much physical poo poo on it. Anyway, the reason most strains fall into variations of these two experiences is because most strains currently available come from these stocks. Morphix fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Dec 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:I'd think for most casual users, the main selling point on mass produced weed would be that you could get your hands on it without dealing with potheads. Never mind what it costs, it would be nicely packaged, portioned and sold over a clean counter. This is sorta me. I have never smoked pot in my life. I enjoy the occasional cigar/drink, but I have always been worried about losing my job due to the illegality of pot. Not to mention I am 31 and all my friends are nerds that have zero interest in smoking anyways, so I have zero contacts. If I could walk into a store and buy pot that I knew was safe and wouldn't get me fired I would try it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
Mrit posted:and wouldn't get me fired. You didn't specifically say otherwise, but it's worth pointing out that with legalization, employers would still be entirely within their rights to fire you for smoking pot, much as they can fire you today for smoking cigarettes or wearing purple shirts, both currently legal activities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2012 23:45
|
|
Xandu posted:Assuming marijuana became legal nationally, would it really end up being good tax revenue? The price would drop massively. A pack of cigarettes is about 16 grams of tobacco. Now high quality weed isn't going to be made that cheaply, but if we are talking full legalization, a "pack" of mid-high quality joints should be able to be made for under $40 (I am trying to be conservative here). In most areas of the country you'd be looking at spending $200 at minimum , for that quantity and quality on the black market. You could slap a 20-40 dollar / pack tax on it and still be way ahead.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You didn't specifically say otherwise, but it's worth pointing out that with legalization, employers would still be entirely within their rights to fire you for smoking pot, much as they can fire you today for smoking cigarettes or wearing purple shirts, both currently legal activities. I know this. But if legalization actually works, it is quite likely in a few years that companies will care less if you smoke off the job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:09 |
|
|
Mrit posted:I know this. But if legalization actually works, it is quite likely in a few years that companies will care less if you smoke off the job. It's not about companies caring one way or the other. For the most part is about providing a "Drug Free Environment" to qualify for affordable insurance. Until weed is federally legal companies will continue to pursue all illegal substance abusers simply to protect the bottom line. I know that many industries and anecdotes make it seem like many companies don't care, and they don't really, but I'll guarantee they have random tests and just cuz you haven't taken them doesn't mean they don't happen. Now there are many caveats. When I recently took my random test it was the day after I'd smoked but it was a swab which are notoriously unreliable for detecting weed. I assume that was intentional. Remember kids, companies don't give a gently caress about you, only money. Hiring and firing costs money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 03:16
|
|
