|
TenementFunster posted:I wouldn't advise anyone to hold their breath. medical prices have mirrored black market prices up here since always. I've heard from friends with medical cards that quality of the medical stuff is superior as is selection, but price hasn't come down as much as should be expected. retail sales might change that but I doubt it. Medical places have good incentive and excuses so long as you can't have practically any jackass with a bit of money and some weed selling. Over time, especially if more surrounding states or under federal legalization, it should drop a lot compared to current medical and current illegal.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Install Windows posted:Medical places have good incentive and excuses so long as you can't have practically any jackass with a bit of money and some weed selling. Over time, especially if more surrounding states or under federal legalization, it should drop a lot compared to current medical and current illegal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:beep boop I trust job creators to offer a fair value to the public and not conspire to fix prices. my autist powers are never wrong!! One of the reasons prices haven't gone down, I think, is that there wasn't that much legal production. Once the legal farms and producers start rolling I think you'll see a major price drop in both recreational and medical marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Reason posted:One of the reasons prices haven't gone down, I think, is that there wasn't that much legal production. Once the legal farms and producers start rolling I think you'll see a major price drop in both recreational and medical marijuana. The market is currently pretty green and new so while the price will go down due to increased supply, it may swing back up as further regulations get passed. In the long and shot term, the price should go down relative to current prices. However, due to the lack of any big players currently in the market as of yet, it's unclear whether the price in the long term will be relatively higher or lower than in the short term.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
This may be totally bullshit, but the owner of the dispensary I go to told me that he could afford to price his top-shelf products at about a fourth of what he currently does and still make a profit, but he's pretty much required to keep his pricing around the black market level to keep the DEA off his rear end. v v
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:This may be totally bullshit, but the owner of the dispensary I go to told me that he could afford to price his top-shelf products at about a fourth of what he currently does and still make a profit, but he's pretty much required to keep his pricing around the black market level to keep the DEA off his rear end. v Reason posted:One of the reasons prices haven't gone down, I think, is that there wasn't that much legal production. Once the legal farms and producers start rolling I think you'll see a major price drop in both recreational and medical marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Ulysses S. Grant posted:This may be totally bullshit, but the owner of the dispensary I go to told me that he could afford to price his top-shelf products at about a fourth of what he currently does and still make a profit, but he's pretty much required to keep his pricing around the black market level to keep the DEA off his rear end. v So how exactly does that work?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:cool way to blame the DEA while lining your own pocket!! If prices have remained constant while quality has gone way up, then in effect the prices have dropped. If you want a real world comparison, look at the cost of opiate narcotics, which command about 10 times the price when sold illegally. Earlier in the thread I linked a RAND study where they estimate the cost of legal cannabis at about $35 / ounce before taxes. I can't find any easy sources, but if someone were to look up alcohol prices during and after prohibition, that'd be cool.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So how exactly does that work? Keeping your sales volume discreetly low, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:08
|
|
|
I would assume it is to keep dealers from buying from dispensaries and then exporting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:To be perfectly honest, even as a former smoker, I would rather people consume their intoxicants in a home or at a bar. if I was walking down the street and saw a guy plugging away at a fifth I'd be a little concerned about the neighborhood i just walked into. KernelSlanders posted:Drinking in public is still considered a fairly anti-social behavior and is, generally speaking, also illegal. If the liquor store across the street from me had people drinking on the sidewalk out front, I'd be pretty annoyed at that, too. There is also no sensible way in which one would inadvertently ingest second hand alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I would assume it is to keep dealers from buying from dispensaries and then exporting it. This is correct. DEA assumes that low unit pricing (as reported on dispensary tax returns) indicates a black-market arm of the business. I know an owner who got hassled because he ran a lot of specials one year and suddenly became very interesting to the Feds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Marijuana is so much closer to tobacco in the way it's used and it's psychoactive effects than it is to alcohol. I've said it before but a good cigar will knock me on my rear end faster than a bong full of the dankest weed. Wow, what? You must be some kind of mutant then because this is not the case for like... anyone else I've ever spoken to. NathanScottPhillips posted:All smoke stinks, no need to discriminate between a joint and a commercial cigarette full of industrial chemicals. Tobacco is a plant too ya know
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
It's probably just my relative tolerance but I have the same response to cigars vs weed. Cigars are shorter lasting but knock me on my rear end much more than a joint will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:Wow, what? You must be some kind of mutant then because this is not the case for like... anyone else I've ever spoken to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I made a point in that post but you specifically deleted it. Are you just trying to be argumentative or...? I just think it doesn't really help the cause when people say things like "weed is just like tobacco only not made of evil chemicals," when weed is really nothing like tobacco and tobacco isn't made of chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I just think it doesn't really help the cause when people say things like "weed is just like tobacco only not made of evil chemicals," when weed is really nothing like tobacco and tobacco isn't made of chemicals. There are things other than tobacco in commercial cigarettes, for example industrial chemicals. Edit: Not that just because something is or isn't "a chemical" it's better or worse for you to burn it and then inhale it, just cigarettes will contain additives that cannabis probably won't. XMNN fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Stop typing "chemicals" as a substitute scare word, you sound like someone raving about chemtrails. Guys there are chemicals in weed and beer and cheerios oh my! I don't see a problem with public weed smoking or drinking, sounds like status quo bias to me. "I'm fine with drinking as long as I don't have to see THOSE sorts of drinkers drinking outside" doesn't exactly reek of thoughtfulness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:I just think it doesn't really help the cause when people say things like "weed is just like tobacco only not made of evil chemicals," when weed is really nothing like tobacco and tobacco isn't made of chemicals. The vast majority of tobacco products in this country fall under my description, just as the vast majority of marijuana products are all-natural. While my post may be slightly inaccurate, your replies are even more inaccurate in this context and fail to address any reasonable point I've made which makes my original skeptical view of your honesty more compelling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
XMNN posted:There are things other than tobacco in commercial cigarettes, for example industrial chemicals. You can buy "additive-free" cigarettes; they're still dangerous, because the dangerous part is where you light a plant on fire and then inhale the tarry smoke. Also, you probably have no idea what kind of additives or impurities might be in your cannabis, because the market is almost entirely unregulated. You might not have to deal with additives to adjust the taste, increase shelf stability, or whatever, but you also don't have any way of knowing whether the person who grew it used a quick spritz of Raid every once in a while to deal with a bug problem. NathanScottPhillips posted:Any my point was about smoking in public versus drinking in public as that is what the discussion had been about before your latest post. Yes tobacco is very different to marijuana. Surely you will agree that alcohol is even more different than marijuana, and in fact marijuana is far closer to tobacco than it is to alcohol. That's why you took up those posters above me who were trying to make an even more dishonest comparison than I was, instead of arguing with me. Certainly that's what someone with a consistent viewpoint would do. You haven't given anyone any reason to go along with "surely you will agree that alcohol is even more different than marijuana." Tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana are three different substances, and it's foolish to say that we should treat marijuana just like tobacco, or just like alcohol; the analogy won't hold everywhere. But, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that marijuana and tobacco are actually exactly the same in all regards; they're two different names for the same plant, in some kind of hilarious taxonomic fuckup. It would still be perfectly reasonable to ask people not to smoke in public, because some people don't like the odor of [tobacco/marijuana] and some people have health issues which make them sensitive to [tobacco/marijuana] smoke. If you keep your smoking private, then you can still enjoy [tobacco/marijuana] without potentially offending or harming others who would like to enjoy public places, as well. Or, more simply, it's common courtesy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:instead of arguing with me. You'd be a hell of a lot better off actually making an argument for allowing people to smoke weed in public that doesn't hinge upon "well you can smoke tobacco and that stuff totally knocks me out." Try framing an argument that cites justifiable reasons why smoking weed in public is either beneficial or a net neutral practice for society. Don't point to tobacco or alcohol with a 'well they can do that so why can't we do this??' attitude in an attempt to bolster a shaky foundation in your argument and people will take you a little more seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:
There are laws explicitly against public drinking/intoxication though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Additionally a lot of places these days effectively ban smoking in public by banning it in nearly all buildings as well as within rather generous distance from any business/public facility entrance/exit. So saying "well weed smoking shouldn't be banned in public because tobacco isn't" is an argument that just doesn't make sense in a lot of places.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are laws explicitly against public drinking/intoxication though. Yeah I know I was stating my opposition to them, or at least my lack of understanding of why they are there. I'm reminded of Colvin's speech on the wire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV9MamysCfQ In addition to the overt drug message it also makes the whole dance of public intoxication laws seem like a waste of time to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
Lots of people who are pro-legalization don't smoke and find second hand smoke offensive, so don't be a dick about it or they will call the police to complain and you will get a ticket. Hell they're even talking about making outdoor smoking of cigarettes (even where permitted) a ticketable offense if someone complains about the smoke and you don't put it out where I live, and I think that's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
IM DAY DAY IRL posted:You'd be a hell of a lot better off actually making an argument for allowing people to smoke weed in public that doesn't hinge upon "well you can smoke tobacco and that stuff totally knocks me out." Try framing an argument that cites justifiable reasons why smoking weed in public is either beneficial or a net neutral practice for society. Don't point to tobacco or alcohol with a 'well they can do that so why can't we do this??' attitude in an attempt to bolster a shaky foundation in your argument and people will take you a little more seriously. I think that marijuana has a stigma attached to it that tobacco clearly does not and I want to expose this obvious stupidity by comparing the two side-by-side. Amendment 64, of which this thread is about, specifically came about to bring marijuana regulation more in line with alcohol, and I am making the point that there is further to go and marijuana should be as accepted as tobacco, in fact more accepted than tobacco. However, since you are for some reason unmoved by this argument (and have offered no counter-argument or position of your own) I guess I'll try and live up to your impossible standards and explain why public use of marijuana should be allowed in society: Less people will be harassed by police for smoking marijuana, this could reduce crime rates, prison populations, court costs, and enforcement costs. There may well be a reduction in police abuse incidents and even deaths as a result of police force. By allowing marijuana to be consumed in public, it will break down the stigma attached to it because it won't be treated as an illegal drug that can only be consumed in the shadows. This will have the affect of hopefully lowering the use of alcohol and tobacco and other truly damaging drugs by allowing people to use a more gentile and even beneficial substance while in the same social settings. Studies have shown that marijuana has many therapeutic and calming effects which could lower violence and crime rates in people who use other substances like tobacco and alcohol which are known to cause stress and make people more violent. Marijuana is being used all over the world to treat serious drug and alcohol addiction and to help people stop smoking tobacco. Studies have shown that people who drive while under the influence of marijuana are not impaired and in some cases drive safer and measurably better while under the influence of marijuana. Indeed states that have legalized MMJ have realized lower traffic fatalities. Tobacco use is permitted while people drive or operate heavy machinery and studies have shown that tobacco increases peoples' stress levels as well as makes them more agitated. Some states have even tried to ban smoking-while-driving. Replacing that tobacco cigarette with a marijuana cigarette could potential save thousands of lives on the roads alone. Marijuana smoke is believed by many to be non-carcinogenic and more studies are underway to back this up. Some studies have shown that marijuana smoke has anti-carcinogenic properties. If true, the most dangerous part about smoking marijuana is inhaling the butane from a BIC lighter. Because of this, second-hand smoke issues from marijuana are non-existent. The odor is unpleasant to some, but vaporizing and edibles eliminate this concern all-together allowing marijuana to be used in a variety of ways where current smoking bans prohibit most tobacco use. The net benefit of this for society would be lower cancer rates and more products to sell (like at a bar, restaurant, or cafe) increasing a business's profit. At lastly, but most importantly, anything that will increase an individuals' freedom, while protecting the freedom of others, is a worthy goal to pursue. This is the basis for the Constitution of the United States of America and therefore I hopefully won't have to prove to you why individual freedom is a good thing. NathanScottPhillips fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:There are laws explicitly against public drinking/intoxication though. Install Windows posted:Additionally a lot of places these days effectively ban smoking in public by banning it in nearly all buildings as well as within rather generous distance from any business/public facility entrance/exit. So saying "well weed smoking shouldn't be banned in public because tobacco isn't" is an argument that just doesn't make sense in a lot of places. Pryor on Fire posted:Lots of people who are pro-legalization don't smoke and find second hand smoke offensive, so don't be a dick about it or they will call the police to complain and you will get a ticket. Hell they're even talking about making outdoor smoking of cigarettes (even where permitted) a ticketable offense if someone complains about the smoke and you don't put it out where I live, and I think that's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Yeah I would accept that "one person bothered" smoking law if it also applied to car exhaust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
You people do understand we've done a ton to reduce car exhaust over the decades right? That's not really the slam dunk rebuttal you think it is. poo poo in many states it's illegal to leave a vehicle idling for too long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Well that's pretty dumb because you're starting from the position that people should not do an activity and offering no justification for it except current laws (which this very thread proves are unrealistic and dumb). Since tobacco is a substance that is similar to marijuana in a variety of ways, especially because both are smoked, it is an ideal comparison to make to further my point. Because the people I was responding to compared public marijuana use to public alcohol use, it was the only way to frame my argument. For all your pious  defense of your "right" to enjoy a recreational drug in one particular way in public, and your utopian visions of a society where everybody's high all the time, you haven't addressed the fact that smoke causes serious medical issues for some people.Jeffrey posted:Yeah I would accept that "one person bothered" smoking law if it also applied to car exhaust. Car exhaust is strictly regulated - even if you're in one of the few states that doesn't test for tailpipe emissions, it's illegal to manufacture or sell new cars which don't keep noxious emissions (basically anything but water vapor and CO2) to extremely low levels. If you smoked inside a filtration system that produced output as clean as a new car's exhaust, I don't think many people would have a problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Its not like we haven't made great strides against secondhand smoke. Smoking inside a business is banned where I live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Between vaping and edibles, who the gently caress only smokes marijuana anymore, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Well said. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Between vaping and edibles, who the gently caress only smokes marijuana anymore, anyway? Truth. Vaping is healthier for you, tastes better, AND you use less weed! We should have tax credits on vaporizers to promote them as the healthier alternative to smoking. There are no concerns about secondhand vapor, so long as you're not intentionally hotboxxing someone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Between vaping and edibles, who the gently caress only smokes marijuana anymore, anyway? Edibles can be a big time investment, and vaping is (to me at least) more of a heady high. Sometimes smoking hits the sweet spot. With legalization happening, will we ever get to the point where an e-cig style vaporizer is possible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
snooman posted:Edibles can be a big time investment, and vaping is (to me at least) more of a heady high. Sometimes smoking hits the sweet spot. Clandestine vaporizing is possible right now. However I wouldn't count on it ever being legal, e-cigs already have a huge backlash, like smoking in general, the most we will get seems to be hookah bars where smoking weed is legal. But I don't know if those are possible in Denver or anywhere yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
snooman posted:With legalization happening, will we ever get to the point where an e-cig style vaporizer is possible? These already exist provided you're smoking oil or wax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
snooman posted:With legalization happening, will we ever get to the point where an e-cig style vaporizer is possible? IM DAY DAY IRL posted:These already exist provided you're smoking oil or wax. And here's one for plain ol' weed: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/grasshopper-vaporizer
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
My post was poorly worded. I'm thinking more along the lines of extracting the pure chemicals in some industrial process and vaping THC/CBD in various proportions. e: If that is legal under law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Between vaping and edibles, who the gently caress only smokes marijuana anymore, anyway? Most people who consume marijuana, that's who.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Well that's pretty dumb because you're starting from the position that people should not do an activity and offering no justification for it except current laws (which this very thread proves are unrealistic and dumb). Since tobacco is a substance that is similar to marijuana in a variety of ways, especially because both are smoked, it is an ideal comparison to make to further my point. Because the people I was responding to compared public marijuana use to public alcohol use, it was the only way to frame my argument. Let me preface this entire post by clearly stating my stance on the issue. I believe that marijuana is caught in an unfortunate double-whammy of currently established law- "quality of life" smoking bans and public intoxication law. I think other various methods of consumption that don't involve smoke or any other potential for third-party effect transmission may be perfectly permissible in public areas but may still be subject to public intoxication law. Existing laws support this; you may not be allowed to smoke in certain areas but that doesn't remove your right to enjoy chewing tobacco, snuff, snus, or any other style of tobacco consumption that doesn't involve smoke (e-cigs are a relatively new method which are still a mystery for many people regarding acceptable usage). It should be absolutely within one's rights to enjoy a legal substance provided consumption does not negatively impact the quality of life or endanger those around. I don't really want to get into dissecting existing smoking laws because I feel like the reasoning is fairly clear for most people. Your point that marijuana may not have any long-term adverse health effects is questionable at best and completely ignores temporary ailments like irritated eyes, throats, or transmission of effect. I feel that the majority of the non-smoking population (and a good portion of those who did smoke) now enjoy not being saddled with the smell of someone else's smoke on their clothes and in their hair thanks to smoking bans. This may not have been a pivotal point in passing the laws in the first place but is the exact type of situation which justifies quality of life laws. Crime reduction as a result of public smoking is ridiculous. Punishment for breaking current smoking laws is typically a citation for the offender and the establishment that, either knowingly or unknowingly, provided the venue. Any reduction in crime, overcrowded jails, costs to the public, ect. is done by legalization of the substance, not by unregulating use. Most of your other points are based off what seems to be selective portions of unsourced studies. If you really want to try and make a claim that having everyone behind the wheel of a car (which, I should note, is hardly a public place) is better at operating a vehicle I'd love to see the evidence that supports your claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 23:38
|
|