Well, my experience is all in the distant past, but it’s really not hard to grow, and the cost is nearly negligible. If you aren’t growing it for profit, you won’t need lights, fertilizer, etc. Those are for when you want to cycle a crop out fast. Tomatoes are a good comparison to growing it outdoors in terms of difficulty. It’s susceptible to a lot of the same nasties, and it needs some of the same nutrients. I have never grown heirloom tomatoes, but tomatoes were easy until the soil in my patch got wilt. I used to think that this meant that the government would not make a large amount by taxing legalized marijuana.
Now, I’ve grown lots of tomatoes, but I still purchase them at the store half of the time. If marijuana were legal, I’d think that the person who smokes all the time is probably going to buy it in much the manner same as alcohol is bought today. That same person might have 1-2 cultivated plants out in the yard if they are a hobbyist, but most of them aren’t going to have the time or interest to care for a years supply of outdoor plants, much less indoors in a grow room. Most of the cost is in the risk of getting caught with the stuff. Even if one was trying to turn over a profit in an illegal market, the cost of the plumbing, lights, and fertilizer for a hydroponic setup would not be the main barrier. Most people have the money for everything besides the lights in their pocket right now. I think the states in question could make a tidy bundle taxing it at the same rate as cigarettes. Which would be a windfall for the state coffers, but not change the economy much.
It might actually have the effect of increasing the problems of the poor, though. Since being a drug dealer can be made into a fairly good paying job. Albeit, an illegal, potentially dangerous one. It still seems to bring money from the wealthier to the poorer areas of town. I don’t think that justifies its prohibition any more than any of the other bad reasons, but I just thought about that.
My wild assed guess as to what would happen: we would see a temporary spike in use as people euphorically celebrate legalization. It would drop down to something slightly higher than pre-ban levels after about a year. Trying something out and sticking with it are two different things.
I remember shortly after I turned 21 and could legally buy booze, I drank alcohol virtually every day for the next couple of months. The thrill for me winded down, and I went back to occasional drinking, mostly on the weekends.
I definitely drink more in my post 21 life than pre-21 because it’s easier to get and I don’t worry about getting caught, but I don’t drink dramatically more than in my mischievous late teens.
I disagree with this view for one important reason: once you start drugging yourself, you might no longer be a responsible adult human being. In modern society you have a duty of care to those around you to act as a “reasonable person” would. Deliberately sabotaging your capacity to fulfil this duty of care is unethical.
God, I am getting drawn off the subject again, but I would sincerely disagree. The potency of what you grow has almost nothing to do with the technique used to grow it, and almost everything to do with the genetics of its parents. The different techniques primarily affect yield and crop turnaround. Obviously, if you can’t keep the plant alive to flowering, no one will want to smoke it. I’m assuming your technique is not so stupid as to actually kill the plant.
And you’re a little out of it if you think the eggheads who write for National Review have much to do with the actions of the average conservative voter, or for that matter conservative politician.
From empirical data. Over the years, there have been a number of ballot initiatives to legalize marijuana. In 2004, there was one in Alaska which was defeated overall by 56 to 44. CNN conducted an exit poll which showed that self-professed liberals supported the measure 75 to 25, whereas self-professed conservatives opposed it 75 to 25. In 2006, Colorado and Nevada had similar ballot initiatives. In the Nevada one, which was again defeated by 56 to 44, CNN’s survey reports that liberals voted Yes 66 to 34, and conservatives voted No 72 to 28. I can’t find a survey for the Colorado results (a 60-40 defeat), but except for the counties of Boulder, Denver and Clear Creek, the measure was defeated everywhere else.
Gallup also conducts periodic polls on marijuana legalization. Based on polls conducted between 2001-2005, conservatives opposed legalization 75 to 22, and liberals favored it 54 to 43. In a 2009 poll, conservatives are against by 72 to 27, and liberals for by 78 to 21.
Both the state-specific and national polls are nearly unanimous. Three-quarters of conservatives wish to keep marijuana illegal. I imagine their attitudes on other drugs are even more stringent. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to favor legalization.
If you want 1 plant in your closet, sure it doesn’t matter much, but that’s not what we have been talking about in this thread. We have been talking about production capacity, in terms of driving down the overall cost per gram (or half gram to be precise, since that is what the article that Algorithm cited used), which is neither trivial nor inexpensive.
To recap in case there is some confusion here - I am trying to refute this argument that I hear time and time again that once pot is legal the price will go way down because the current price is grossly inflated due to some sort of imaginary black market overhead. I totally disagree, and think that the current prices are about what you would see post-legalization, because the processes in place now are very similar to the ones you would see post-legalization.
To be fair, prices WILL go down in areas that are currently far from major grow areas, so maybe in say (I don’t really know but WAG) Idaho prices will drop, but in California, not really.
Well, 1 plant in your closet or 20 in your backyard really wouldn’t be that hard. Currently, it is certainly not expensive with the exception of the legal problems it could cause. Legalization would drive the primary material cost down, because you’d then be able to openly use the sun to grow the things, instead of lights. Besides your time, which is minimal with a smart setup, lights and electricity are the primary cost. Even without being able to openly use the sun, lights and electricity are relatively cheap compared to a court case.
If we were talking about a different plant, no one would even begin to argue that it would be just as cheap to grow it in a closet under lights instead of a field. Seriously, try to say this sentence with a straight face:
If we made corn (or tobacco, or cane sugar) illegal, and forced the black market farmers to grow it indoors, it’s price would not increase appreciably.
If for nothing else, competition from farmers looking for a cash crop would drive the price down. It’s just a plant, and not a really delicate one at that.
The issue I mentioned consisted almost entirely of well over 100 notable conservatives: politicians (mayors, governors, congressclowns, etc.) business leaders, leaders of community organizations, etc. writing short pieces (2-4 per page) detailing why they thought drugs should be legalized. Hardly a small group of eggheads.
As I said earlier there are already places where this stuff is grown with almost no repercussions. Some is grown outdoors, and is cheaper and of inferior quality. The premium stuff is grown indoors, and that isn’t going to change post-legalization. There are exceptions of course but that’s the general rule. Its sort of like the difference between a microbrew vs budweiser. A market already exists, it is as close to a free market as you can find, it has internal competition, and has a wide price range. Some stuff is EXTREMELY cheap, and simply can’t get much cheaper.
Some more guesses about what would happen.
The state would have an influx of drug tourists. Since regular hotels ban smoking, pot hotels would spring up. Nearby residents would pitch a fit.
Pot shops would spring up along the interstates, near the borders.
There would be lawsuits. Since MJ is legal why should people have to pass drug tests? Can an employer discriminate based on drug of choice? I know some people will disagree with me but I think air-traffic controller should pass drug tests.
Science would get a boost because researchers would be able to study the plant. Some valuable pharmacuticals would be discovered. Some myths about pot use would finally be studied.
