Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
Few policies have gained more recent momentum than "regulating marijuana like alcohol." From Oregon to Massachusetts, marijuana legalization initiatives across the nation have successfully seized this mantle both in name and substance. Here in California, the sponsors of the recent Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act — as well as Proposition 64 — have also publicly admitted their reliance on the alcohol model.
However, it's important to recognize the dangerous limitations of oversimplifying the issue — especially those areas where marijuana and alcohol are quite different. One example is measuring driver impairment, where a blood concentration limit is simply not scientifically possible for marijuana due to the plant's unique pharmacology and chemistry. After the American Automobile Association publicly agreed on this point, state legislators are now scrambling to find a marijuana-specific law enforcement solution.
Another "alcohol-style" policy inapplicable to marijuana is a mandated "three-tier" distribution method — supplier, wholesaler and retailer. As both the Los Angeles Times and Politico recently reported, a small group of powerful liquor distributors has joined forces with some marijuana growers to successfully lobby for alcohol-style distributor mandates in the new state medical marijuana law, and now are announcing their impending monopoly power around the state.
But alcohol and marijuana represent fundamentally opposite asset types with respect to storage and warehousing. For example, alcoholic beverages tend to hold their quality and potency quite well over time, and many liquors and wines even gain value over time as they age. The fact that product quality does not deteriorate during all of that extra time spent in a warehouse or cellar is crucial to the success of the three-tier system.
In stark contrast, marijuana is a rapidly depreciating asset in storage. Unlike high-end liquor, the highest-quality marijuana available is inevitably the freshest — harvested and cured within weeks, or, ideally, days, of its consumption. Even after several hours, the marijuana plant begins to lose its unique intoxicating properties. When it comes to distribution and storage, marijuana and alcohol are complete opposites.
Policy based on misunderstanding core asset fundamentals is not solely a concern of medical patients and consumer aficionados, but rather harms all of the people in our state. Under state rules, for example, many of the new mandated safety and testing procedures will only maintain their validity for a few weeks, at best, due to drying and decomposition in the plant material and other inevitable processes. This reality is true even for concentrates, extracts and other products, and results in both quality and potency loss.
Whether we call the policy "tied-house," "three-tier" or "independent distribution," it becomes something very different when it is applied to marijuana, namely, mandated depreciation. It is high time to move beyond talking points and political posturing and base policies on proven science, sound economics and real-world experience. We can wait for this system to prove itself unworkable under state rules — with vast shortages, low quality and rampant black market diversion — or we can proactively use this knowledge to make common-sense reforms.
Fortunately, Prop. 64 learns from this experience and takes a much smarter approach. Among other things, it allows licensees the flexibility to choose their most preferred distribution model, and provides crucial research grants and other funding opportunities for scientifically valid tools to prevent against impairment.
We can let the incredibly powerful alcohol distribution lobby fool us yet again, or we can use knowledge and information for our empowerment. The choice is ours.
Vote yes on Prop. 64 this November to finally, and astutely, legalize the adult use of marijuana in California.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: To Prevent Takeover From 'Big Alcohol,' First Grasp Marijuana Market
Author: Yuri Vanetik
Contact: The Orange County Register
Photo Credit: Mark Chilvers
Website: The Orange County Register
However, it's important to recognize the dangerous limitations of oversimplifying the issue — especially those areas where marijuana and alcohol are quite different. One example is measuring driver impairment, where a blood concentration limit is simply not scientifically possible for marijuana due to the plant's unique pharmacology and chemistry. After the American Automobile Association publicly agreed on this point, state legislators are now scrambling to find a marijuana-specific law enforcement solution.
Another "alcohol-style" policy inapplicable to marijuana is a mandated "three-tier" distribution method — supplier, wholesaler and retailer. As both the Los Angeles Times and Politico recently reported, a small group of powerful liquor distributors has joined forces with some marijuana growers to successfully lobby for alcohol-style distributor mandates in the new state medical marijuana law, and now are announcing their impending monopoly power around the state.
But alcohol and marijuana represent fundamentally opposite asset types with respect to storage and warehousing. For example, alcoholic beverages tend to hold their quality and potency quite well over time, and many liquors and wines even gain value over time as they age. The fact that product quality does not deteriorate during all of that extra time spent in a warehouse or cellar is crucial to the success of the three-tier system.
In stark contrast, marijuana is a rapidly depreciating asset in storage. Unlike high-end liquor, the highest-quality marijuana available is inevitably the freshest — harvested and cured within weeks, or, ideally, days, of its consumption. Even after several hours, the marijuana plant begins to lose its unique intoxicating properties. When it comes to distribution and storage, marijuana and alcohol are complete opposites.
Policy based on misunderstanding core asset fundamentals is not solely a concern of medical patients and consumer aficionados, but rather harms all of the people in our state. Under state rules, for example, many of the new mandated safety and testing procedures will only maintain their validity for a few weeks, at best, due to drying and decomposition in the plant material and other inevitable processes. This reality is true even for concentrates, extracts and other products, and results in both quality and potency loss.
Whether we call the policy "tied-house," "three-tier" or "independent distribution," it becomes something very different when it is applied to marijuana, namely, mandated depreciation. It is high time to move beyond talking points and political posturing and base policies on proven science, sound economics and real-world experience. We can wait for this system to prove itself unworkable under state rules — with vast shortages, low quality and rampant black market diversion — or we can proactively use this knowledge to make common-sense reforms.
Fortunately, Prop. 64 learns from this experience and takes a much smarter approach. Among other things, it allows licensees the flexibility to choose their most preferred distribution model, and provides crucial research grants and other funding opportunities for scientifically valid tools to prevent against impairment.
We can let the incredibly powerful alcohol distribution lobby fool us yet again, or we can use knowledge and information for our empowerment. The choice is ours.
Vote yes on Prop. 64 this November to finally, and astutely, legalize the adult use of marijuana in California.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: To Prevent Takeover From 'Big Alcohol,' First Grasp Marijuana Market
Author: Yuri Vanetik
Contact: The Orange County Register
Photo Credit: Mark Chilvers
Website: The Orange County Register