4 ms·
On (1) I'm don't see how limiting the number of growers was, or should have been, within OLCC's role. When governments try to match supply to demand this way it
by jefftk 4y ago
On (1) I'm don't see how limiting the number of growers was, or should have been, within OLCC's role. When governments try to match supply to demand this way it generally goes very poorly in the best case (ex: certificate of need requirements for opening hospitals, federal marketing orders limiting production) and runs into regulatory capture in the worst case (ex: increasing the entry requirements for professions to boost wages).
The people best included to make good decisions on how much to produce were the growers and their investors, with their own time and money on the line.
- mind-blight 4y agoWhether you agree with it or not, OLCCs role is to regulate the entire market - including supply and demand. They do the same thing with liquor. Oregon is a controlled liquor state where everything sold has to move through the government. I think they're draconian and heavy handed, but it's absolutely part their job. Philosophically, I agree with limiting the supply via regulation and licensing for at least the first few years. Everything else was already highly regulated: it's a schedule 1 substance that can't be sold out of state and can only be sold to 21+ in state. Some of the biggest players in the existing black market were the Mexican cartels, and they absolutely were trying to take advantage of the legal status to hide illegal activity. Nothing about that market says it will go well with an immediate free-for-all. Long-term that may be ok, but short term that was just unrealistic