Move To Legalize Marijuana In California Sparks Fears About Drop In Prices

[Warbux]

A proposal to put the legalization of marijuana in California to a vote this November is causing some growers of the plant in the state to worry about a sharp drop in the value of their crop if the measure succeeds.

As The Los Angeles Times explained in January, when supporters of the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 turned in more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, the initiative "would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales."

On Monday, The Times-Sentinel newspaper in Humboldt County, a part of Northern California known as the "Emerald Triangle" for the density of its marijuana crop, reported:

Local business people, officials and those involved in the marijuana industry are planning to meet Tuesday night and break a long-standing silence to talk about what supposedly is the backbone of Humboldt County's economy – pot. More specifically, the meeting will focus on the potential economic effects of the legalization of marijuana.


While the local newspaper's report on the meeting quoted the its organizer, Anna Hamilton, by name, it did not state that she was, herself, a grower of the plant – which is legal in the state only when used as medication. According to The Times-Sentinel, Ms. Hamilton "said she is 'intimately involved' with the marijuana industry." That sort of coyness led Frank James to write on NPR's news blog:

Marijuana growers tend to be a fairly secretive lot, probably even in Humboldt, so I wonder what the attendance will be like and if the Drug Enforcement Agency will be there.

Ms. Hamilton told the local newspaper that if the county's marijuana industry prepares for legalization, there could be some positives for the area: "We have to embrace marijuana tourism, marijuana products and services – and marijuana has to become a part of the Humboldt County brand," she said.

The ballot initiative, which is being presented in part as a way to raise tax revenues for California, is supported by Richard Lee, an Oakland businessman who makes his money selling the drug legally. Mr. Lee also founded Oaksterdam University, which trains growers.

A campaign Web site, Taxcannabis.org, prominently features the results of a 2009 Field poll that found that "legalizing marijuana and taxing its proceeds" was supported by 56 percent of those surveyed in California.

The same Web site noted that three columnists for The Orange Country Register recently included the legalization and taxation of marijuana production in a list of ideas to help California balance its books – along with calls to privatize the state's prisons, suspend the fight against global warming and drill for oil in the waters near the state's beaches.


News Hawk: Warbux 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The New York Times
Author: Robert Mackey
Contact: Robert Mackey - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com
Copyright: 2010 The New York Times
Website: Move to Legalize Marijuana in California Sparks Fears About Drop in Prices - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com

 

[Warbux]

i hope it does ya greedy ***** ...

I remember an ounce costing $20.00 when i first started smoking,,Ahhhhh the good old days..lol

 

[GanjaAL2]

would'nt 2.00 a pound be nice....

 

[Warbux]

would'nt 2.00 a pound be nice....

Not for the grower..lol

 

[MedicalNeed]

The price should be similar to Peanuts, and other row cropped grains.

Once prohibition is gone it would be more like Bushel amount pricing.

And yes it will be even cheaper than what you may think.

Suddenlly the fiber would be more valuable than the tops, and the "Hemp Oil" would be the most valuable part. Just as it used to be.

 

[Warbux]

The price should be similar to Peanuts, and other row cropped grains.

Once prohibition is gone it would be more like Bushel amount pricing.

And yes it will be even cheaper than what you may think.

Suddenlly the fiber would be more valuable than the tops, and the "Hemp Oil" would be the most valuable part. Just as it used to be.

And just as it SHOULD be...

 

[vanceredwood]

i do not grow for profit

 

[Warbux]

i do not grow for profit

I dont recall anyone saying you were... But thanx for the input..

 

[RoguePoet]

absolutely the price will and should drop...

of course there will still be premium buds at higher prices...the good growers should still get paid for their talent...

I certainly look forward to being able to roll fatties for less...

 

[MedicalNeed]

Rouge Poet I think you just Named "The New" supply model.



"Fatties For Less"

 

[StinkFinger]

On the flip side.

Actually the price might not drop, but could go up!

All about supply and demand. Even though it would be legal to grow your own, it's possible there could be several million potential new "clients" that simply wouldn't want to deal with growing.

Who really cares about market prices (which will sort out) as long as it's finally decriminalized! What a great possibility for California!

SF

 

[GanjaAL2]

So all kidding a side... where do we see prices going? As far as some of these bills are going we are atleast looking at 50.00 an ounce in taxes. So with that... what are we looking at as far as pricing goes. I am all for lower prices for the sick and everyone around but it is not easy nor is it cheap to grow grade "A" bud with no chems, mold, pest's ect. Yea you can say all you want about growing outdoors but hydro is still top dog.

 

[TorturedSoul]

If the prices that the people charge the sick - all in the name of helping them, how ironic is that? - drop significantly, I'd vote for it.

If it becomes a factor in fighting drug screenings for cannabis, I'd vote for it.

If it brings in tax dollars for the state & local treasuries without negatively impacting the poor, I'd vote for it.

If it causes a drop in the importation of Mexican dirt-weed, which would help to keep this country's money in this country - thereby cutting at least some of the fuel which has long caused violence and deaths in Mexico - I'd vote for it.

The amount allowed for possession should be changed to 24 ounces, a reasonable supply for one adult (for non-medical use) for one year. Not everyone would want to or be able to grow in a "perpetual harvest" style and I see no benefit in prejudicing the law against those who would rather just grow once per year. Additionally, to allow someone to grow 1, 2, 6, or any number of plants and/or to allow them to grow in one, five, ten, 25, or any number of square feet while at the same time placing an arbitrarily-low limit on the amount they can legally harvest and possess is not only completely illogical, it is also... silly. 25 square feet seems reasonable to me as the upper-limit of allowable grow space for non-medical users and a 24-ounce possession limit of dried, cured product would be entirely doable in that size of a space without too much worry that the gardener would have to be penalized because he/she had healthy plants.

I would absolutely support the taxing of the product if it is sold - but only to people who are not qualified medical users. Unfortunately, at this time I cannot believe that "because it makes me feel better" is a qualified medical use; however, if the person in question had issues such as depression and the like and can demonstrate that cannabis does make him/her feel better in a clinical sense then that individual should be a qualifying medical user. The reason for my opinion here is that many things in life make people feel better that are known as recreational activities. While I support in the general sense an individual's right to recreational activity, I do not feel that anyone's specific preferred form of recreational activity should be a qualified non-taxable activity on a blanket-basis. Again, if it can be demonstrated that the use of cannabis by an individual is the sole - or even primary - form of such that brings quality to their life, then it is not simply a recreational activity in my book but rather medicine, therapy, or something of that sort and in no way, shape, or form should such be taxed. I would support a per-transaction tax on the product if/when it were sold commercially and a reasonable (no more than 10%) tax on all equipment/nutrient/etc. sales to non-medical users.

I would only support taxation of this product if the primary (>80%) use of such tax moneys were spent on health-care or health-related expenses. Such uses could include medical expenses of the poor and drug rehabilitation/education for people addicted to what I consider problem drugs such as cr*ck/c*c**n*, h*r**n, cr*st*l m*th, and the like but also pills such as *p**t*s, b*nz*s, etc. I would also support some portion of that amount but not to exceed 15% to go towards what I consider to be "wellness" uses such as subsidizing health-club memberships for the poor, dietary and lifestyle (meaning such things like promoting physical activities over sedentary ones such as spending 10 hours a day watching television or websurfing/myspacing/etc.) education, and in general such things as can be reasonably expected to improve the overall health of the population and prevent the need for medical treatments/procedures later on in life. The other <19% the state can have to do what it generally does with our tax dollars, which is waste most of it and use the remaining amount to hire/appoint more bureaucrats (which is in itself a waste both in dollars and in potential human productivity). Unfortunately, while I strongly advocate most things that deal with a genuine help to people's mental health, I cannot suggest that any such tax monies be used directly for it - because that would in my opinion lead to said government defining what is and is not mentally-healthy - and they have demonstrated time and time again that they are completely incapable of doing so - and, eventually, how and what to think.

 

[Hightide805]

The amount allowed for possession should be changed to 24 ounces, a reasonable supply for one adult (for non-medical use) for one year. Not everyone would want to or be able to grow in a "perpetual harvest" style and I see no benefit in prejudicing the law against those who would rather just grow once per year. Additionally, to allow someone to grow 1, 2, 6, or any number of plants and/or to allow them to grow in one, five, ten, 25, or any number of square feet while at the same time placing an arbitrarily-low limit on the amount they can legally harvest and possess is not only completely illogical, it is also... silly. 25 square feet seems reasonable to me as the upper-limit of allowable grow space for non-medical users and a 24-ounce possession limit of dried, cured product would be entirely doable in that size of a space without too much worry that the gardener would have to be penalized because he/she had healthy plants.

very good point!

 

[Warbux]

very good point!

Correct me if i'm wrong, But is'nt 24 ounces considered a 60 day supply in the western states? i.e. California, Oregon, and Washington..If so, Then holy shit Batman.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Correct me if i'm wrong, But is'nt 24 ounces considered a 60 day supply in the western states? i.e. California, Oregon, and Washington..If so, Then holy shit Batman.

Current amounts are for qualified medical users to help alleviate symptoms/conditions. This, OTOH, is in regards to legalizing it for recreational use for every adult.

I certainly wouldn't expect this legislature to further restrict medical users in any way.

 

[Warbux]

Current amounts are for qualified medical users to help alleviate symptoms/conditions. This, OTOH, is in regards to legalizing it for recreational use for every adult.

I certainly wouldn't expect this legislature to further restrict medical users in any way.

Yee gads no,,Me either..i was merely questioning about the medical limits of the current law.

 

[420warriors]

TorturedSoul, I think your proposal is great and would love to see something like that in every state or on a federal level. 24 oz would only last a lot of people 2 to 3 mo,but they could grow about that same amount in the allotted space, as a perpetual grow. I think you won't see such a fair bill though because it would win so overwhelmingly all other states would have to take notice. Many people who don't care either way about MJ would vote for it just to see the money go to the right places. I think several of our nations problems could be greatly reduced with the uses of hemp and MJ. I mean come on, Henry Fords first Model T was made from hemp and ran on hemp fuel!! (A fact I learned on this site) There would be no more need to rely on foreign oil or for Cali to start drilling. The taxes generated from legalizing would be like free money, if politicians weren't so greedy the money could be put into healthcare and other wellness programs. I'm biased but I also think states would make a ton of money by making ATVs street legal and making them be licensed and insured just like a car. It would be popular because of fuel efficiency. And 4 wheels are safer than 2. A little off topic, but I had to throw that in there while I was rambling.

 

[StinkFinger]

If the prices that the people charge the sick - all in the name of helping them, how ironic is that? - drop significantly, I'd vote for it.

If it becomes a factor in fighting drug screenings for cannabis, I'd vote for it.

If it brings in tax dollars for the state & local treasuries without negatively impacting the poor, I'd vote for it.

If it causes a drop in the importation of Mexican dirt-weed, which would help to keep this country's money in this country - thereby cutting at least some of the fuel which has long caused violence and deaths in Mexico - I'd vote for it.

The amount allowed for possession should be changed to 24 ounces, a reasonable supply for one adult (for non-medical use) for one year. Not everyone would want to or be able to grow in a "perpetual harvest" style and I see no benefit in prejudicing the law against those who would rather just grow once per year. Additionally, to allow someone to grow 1, 2, 6, or any number of plants and/or to allow them to grow in one, five, ten, 25, or any number of square feet while at the same time placing an arbitrarily-low limit on the amount they can legally harvest and possess is not only completely illogical, it is also... silly. 25 square feet seems reasonable to me as the upper-limit of allowable grow space for non-medical users and a 24-ounce possession limit of dried, cured product would be entirely doable in that size of a space without too much worry that the gardener would have to be penalized because he/she had healthy plants.

I would absolutely support the taxing of the product if it is sold - but only to people who are not qualified medical users. Unfortunately, at this time I cannot believe that "because it makes me feel better" is a qualified medical use; however, if the person in question had issues such as depression and the like and can demonstrate that cannabis does make him/her feel better in a clinical sense then that individual should be a qualifying medical user. The reason for my opinion here is that many things in life make people feel better that are known as recreational activities. While I support in the general sense an individual's right to recreational activity, I do not feel that anyone's specific preferred form of recreational activity should be a qualified non-taxable activity on a blanket-basis. Again, if it can be demonstrated that the use of cannabis by an individual is the sole - or even primary - form of such that brings quality to their life, then it is not simply a recreational activity in my book but rather medicine, therapy, or something of that sort and in no way, shape, or form should such be taxed. I would support a per-transaction tax on the product if/when it were sold commercially and a reasonable (no more than 10%) tax on all equipment/nutrient/etc. sales to non-medical users.

I would only support taxation of this product if the primary (>80%) use of such tax moneys were spent on health-care or health-related expenses. Such uses could include medical expenses of the poor and drug rehabilitation/education for people addicted to what I consider problem drugs such as cr*ck/c*c**n*, h*r**n, cr*st*l m*th, and the like but also pills such as *p**t*s, b*nz*s, etc. I would also support some portion of that amount but not to exceed 15% to go towards what I consider to be "wellness" uses such as subsidizing health-club memberships for the poor, dietary and lifestyle (meaning such things like promoting physical activities over sedentary ones such as spending 10 hours a day watching television or websurfing/myspacing/etc.) education, and in general such things as can be reasonably expected to improve the overall health of the population and prevent the need for medical treatments/procedures later on in life. The other <19% the state can have to do what it generally does with our tax dollars, which is waste most of it and use the remaining amount to hire/appoint more bureaucrats (which is in itself a waste both in dollars and in potential human productivity). Unfortunately, while I strongly advocate most things that deal with a genuine help to people's mental health, I cannot suggest that any such tax monies be used directly for it - because that would in my opinion lead to said government defining what is and is not mentally-healthy - and they have demonstrated time and time again that they are completely incapable of doing so - and, eventually, how and what to think.

TorturedSoul.

Nice post, but tell us, how do you REALLY feel?



SF

 

[honestone]

Legalize today. Are we all registered voters? Legalization of marijuana will encourage tourist to come to California which will stimulate the economy. Think of all the new potential customers the marijuana farmer will have.