8 ms·

How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

111 points by krigath 12y ago

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
Colorado, probably. Washington, not yet. The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-washington-state-screwed-up-its-legal-pot-system http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-wash... Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal supply for the state's demand. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-legal-marijuana-growing-279593732.html http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-lega... But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a typo).
- kyllo 12y ago
  And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to keep it all above board & guarantee quality.
    - joshkpeterson 12y ago
      I think most people just buy black market stuff so far. But at least you can't get arrested for possession ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
      The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-only-pot-store-uncle-ikes-sold-13736-of-marijuana-per-day-in-first-week/ http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-o... So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/06/drug_cartels_in_oregon_violenc.html http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...
      - musername 12y ago
        If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.
        HelloMcFly 12y ago
        Enough people have already demonstrated willingness to pay the higher price that I'm not sure I believe your argument. And at any rate, legalization is likely to grow the population of smokers, and that growth will likely be among those most interested in legal acquisition. In WA, prices will come down as supply increases, so it's not a static environment anyway.
  - musername 12y ago
    It's also over what, 50 times as much as the production cost?
- tdicola 12y ago
  There were also some pretty big gaffes with the lottery process to allow the first stores to open. There was very little vetting of the participants and as a result many of the people who got picked were completely unprepared to open and run a retail business. Companies with experience and money to get a store open lost out to people who just wanted to put their name in the hat and have no intention or real capability of opening a store.
lisper 12y ago
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.
- canjobear 12y ago
  It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
  - lisper 12y ago
    I didn't say that it didn't work, I said it was an unmitigated disaster. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.
    - jMyles 12y ago
      Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs. As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
      - ddingus 12y ago
        Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers. That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.
3rd3 12y ago
I’m wondering to which extent this is simply a temporary effect because the overall population is pleased with this decision. I don’t believe it’s only that but I could imagine that it contributes with a low two digit percentage.
pmoriarty 12y ago
The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of what's happening. I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better. Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's. I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic revolution.
- sopooneo 12y ago
  I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics, though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.
  - pmoriarty 12y ago
    You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press. Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them. Psychedelics hold this potential.
guard-of-terra 12y ago
I wonder if the names of people who put Marijuana in the strictest schedule of various laws and agreements are known. I think someone should dig them up, so the world can know its heroes by name.
- jakejake 12y ago
  There's a lot of interesting names here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    It's interesting that it was introduced by a Dem. I think there should be a move that Dem formally apologise for this law - or all the weed smokers no longer vote for them and they become unelectable.
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the mistake. Holding current Democrats disproportionately responsible is myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of any party who are on the wrong side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who views it as the most important issue ("weed smoker" or not).
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        I was a different person when I was twelve. Would still apologise to anyone I ever hurt back then. It's way better than stubborness.
        dllthomas 12y ago
        Organizations are not people. Treating them as if they are makes for poor reasoning.
flinkblinkhink 12y ago
I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far. It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted. It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco. It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.
- Tloewald 12y ago
  Since when is Tobacco in Australia sold in plain packaging? AFAIK (it's been a while since I lived in Australia) the health messages have to be very prominent, and they can't advertise on TV, radio, or near schools, but they can still advertise in some places (print) and package as they like modulo "Smoking Kills Babies" type messages. (It's funny, my smoker friends used to identify their packets of cigarettes by the message -- "oh mine was the 'causes birth defects' package" (they all smoked Marlboro Lights or Benson & Hedges)
  - flinkblinkhink 12y ago
    Tobacco cannot be advertised at all in Australia except for I think at the Grand Prix car racing. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-plain http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Conten...
    - Tloewald 12y ago
      Thanks for the info. That's still more commercial than pot in Colorado!
- yodsanklai 12y ago
  I agree with you. There's a whole trend of advertising cannabis as something cool (or as a miracle "natural" medication that cures everything, from anxiety to back pain). Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it. That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.
jamesash 12y ago
People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.
- ddingus 12y ago
  Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there. Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it. IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users. For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well. If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.

111 points by krigath 12y ago

Colorado, probably. Washington, not yet. The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-washington-state-screwed-up-its-legal-pot-system http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-wash... Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal supply for the state's demand. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-legal-marijuana-growing-279593732.html http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-lega... But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a typo).

kyllo 12y ago
And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.
- krschultz 12y ago
  That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to keep it all above board & guarantee quality.
  - joshkpeterson 12y ago
    I think most people just buy black market stuff so far. But at least you can't get arrested for possession ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-only-pot-store-uncle-ikes-sold-13736-of-marijuana-per-day-in-first-week/ http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-o... So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2013/06/drug_cartels_in_oregon_violenc.html http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...
    - musername 12y ago
      If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.
      - HelloMcFly 12y ago
        Enough people have already demonstrated willingness to pay the higher price that I'm not sure I believe your argument. And at any rate, legalization is likely to grow the population of smokers, and that growth will likely be among those most interested in legal acquisition. In WA, prices will come down as supply increases, so it's not a static environment anyway.
- musername 12y ago
  It's also over what, 50 times as much as the production cost?
tdicola 12y ago
There were also some pretty big gaffes with the lottery process to allow the first stores to open. There was very little vetting of the participants and as a result many of the people who got picked were completely unprepared to open and run a retail business. Companies with experience and money to get a store open lost out to people who just wanted to put their name in the hat and have no intention or real capability of opening a store.

lisper 12y ago

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.

canjobear 12y ago
It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
- lisper 12y ago
  I didn't say that it didn't work, I said it was an unmitigated disaster. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs. As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
    - ddingus 12y ago
      Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers. That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.

3rd3 12y ago

I’m wondering to which extent this is simply a temporary effect because the overall population is pleased with this decision. I don’t believe it’s only that but I could imagine that it contributes with a low two digit percentage.

pmoriarty 12y ago

The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of what's happening. I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better. Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's. I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic revolution.

sopooneo 12y ago
I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics, though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press. Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them. Psychedelics hold this potential.

guard-of-terra 12y ago

I wonder if the names of people who put Marijuana in the strictest schedule of various laws and agreements are known. I think someone should dig them up, so the world can know its heroes by name.

jakejake 12y ago
There's a lot of interesting names here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  It's interesting that it was introduced by a Dem. I think there should be a move that Dem formally apologise for this law - or all the weed smokers no longer vote for them and they become unelectable.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the mistake. Holding current Democrats disproportionately responsible is myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of any party who are on the wrong side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who views it as the most important issue ("weed smoker" or not).
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      I was a different person when I was twelve. Would still apologise to anyone I ever hurt back then. It's way better than stubborness.
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        Organizations are not people. Treating them as if they are makes for poor reasoning.

flinkblinkhink 12y ago

I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far. It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted. It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco. It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.

Tloewald 12y ago
Since when is Tobacco in Australia sold in plain packaging? AFAIK (it's been a while since I lived in Australia) the health messages have to be very prominent, and they can't advertise on TV, radio, or near schools, but they can still advertise in some places (print) and package as they like modulo "Smoking Kills Babies" type messages. (It's funny, my smoker friends used to identify their packets of cigarettes by the message -- "oh mine was the 'causes birth defects' package" (they all smoked Marlboro Lights or Benson & Hedges)
- flinkblinkhink 12y ago
  Tobacco cannot be advertised at all in Australia except for I think at the Grand Prix car racing. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/tobacco-plain http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Conten...
  - Tloewald 12y ago
    Thanks for the info. That's still more commercial than pot in Colorado!
yodsanklai 12y ago
I agree with you. There's a whole trend of advertising cannabis as something cool (or as a miracle "natural" medication that cures everything, from anxiety to back pain). Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it. That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.

jamesash 12y ago

People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.

ddingus 12y ago
Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there. Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it. IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users. For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well. If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.