4 ms·

1-4 do not "reverse" if legalized. The price for cannabis is still magnitudes higher than it was before legalization (we're going on what 15 years in Cali now).

1-4 do not "reverse" if legalized. The price for cannabis is still magnitudes higher than it was before legalization (we're going on what 15 years in Cali now). The ones who can produce are still decided by the government. If you want to pretend those things reverse so your argument seems sound you're welcome to do so. Doesn't make it true.

Dylan16807 4y ago
A huge part of those ongoing prices is because it's only semi-legal and they can't do things like use banks. And part is a cost of regulation that would increase the price even without banning. If you remove both of those effects, I'm not sure you have much left.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  Consider the suppressed effect on demand; lower demand through banning means more stable prices. Even under medical/rec programs the prices aren't lower and if fully legalized with regulatory complexity the price would skyrocket as demand explodes and supplier constraints remain. Equilibrium will be reached based specifically on the actions of government to allow it to. Meaning, if government suppresses demand and limits supply through laws they stand to benefit the most from taxation. Just like anyone would with the same power in the free market as a middle man. Hence, the tax-it-to-have-it scheme has to move slowly or else the gray market that surfaces will do so specifically to undercut taxation and artificial government constraints. (Just like with pharmaceuticals and online markets)
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > Meaning, if government suppresses demand and limits supply through laws they stand to benefit the most from taxation. Just like anyone would with the same power in the free market as a middle man. Yes, but that situation can happen without ever banning something. The problem is the way taxes and/or regulation can be set up, which I see as a separate issue.

Dylan16807 4y ago

A huge part of those ongoing prices is because it's only semi-legal and they can't do things like use banks. And part is a cost of regulation that would increase the price even without banning. If you remove both of those effects, I'm not sure you have much left.

chatterhead 4y ago
Consider the suppressed effect on demand; lower demand through banning means more stable prices. Even under medical/rec programs the prices aren't lower and if fully legalized with regulatory complexity the price would skyrocket as demand explodes and supplier constraints remain. Equilibrium will be reached based specifically on the actions of government to allow it to. Meaning, if government suppresses demand and limits supply through laws they stand to benefit the most from taxation. Just like anyone would with the same power in the free market as a middle man. Hence, the tax-it-to-have-it scheme has to move slowly or else the gray market that surfaces will do so specifically to undercut taxation and artificial government constraints. (Just like with pharmaceuticals and online markets)
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Meaning, if government suppresses demand and limits supply through laws they stand to benefit the most from taxation. Just like anyone would with the same power in the free market as a middle man. Yes, but that situation can happen without ever banning something. The problem is the way taxes and/or regulation can be set up, which I see as a separate issue.