That's alot of dope!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

The actual price might drop, but the taxes wouldn't. In Canada, we get taxed like crazy for cigarettes and booze, I don't see why the same thing wouldn't happen with weed. Then you have to figure in the cost of corporations getting involved. You'd be paying for their marketing etc....

As for the option to buy illegal, a lot of growers would just leave the market. Marijuana would become like any other consumer good. People preferring to know what they get through brands and the convenience of buying in stores outweighing any price benefit from buying from a local grower.

I think there is a lot of talking going on here without a lot of evidence.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by alltherage

You also have to consider the reduced overhead with streamlined systems though. If you are mass-producing and legally transporting massive quantities of product it would be way less expensive than have a few hundred plants here and there and having to transport smaller qtys at a time.

A legal operation is not going to use cheap set ups made of tin foil and plastic tubing. They also have to pay for real labour. I doubt scale would reduce the price at all.

Then you have to factor in the cost of advertising, paying for an office including the cost of secretaries, executives, health plans, equipment, etc. etc. etc.. etc.. Basically, the cost running a real business.

Marijuana growth is also much more labour intensive than tobacco growth. With tabacco, you are just harvesting the leaves. Harvesting buds takes a lot more attention and care. It also means a much smaller portion of the plant is usable goods. No way the price of a joint gets anywhere near a cigarette.

Then taxes would be thrown on top of that. Based on the precedents we have with cigarettes, the taxes would account for a large portion of the purchase price. I'm guessing 75% plus.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Did you just admit to running multiple grow ops on an internet message board, or am I missing something?

Originally Posted by HOOT

For example lbs that I buy are $2100/lb, if I bought 5lbs at once it would be $2000/lb.

haha I meant straight from the guy that does it. No I don't have the balls to run an operation like that.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by HOOT

haha I meant straight from the guy that does it. No I don't have the balls to run an operation like that.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Did you just admit to running multiple grow ops on an internet message board, or am I missing something?

No, he just admitted to being a drug dealer who buys his weed in 5 lbs shipments from the grow ops.....

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

A legal operation is not going to use cheap set ups made of tin foil and plastic tubing. They also have to pay for real labour. I doubt scale would reduce the price at all.

Then you have to factor in the cost of advertising, paying for an office including the cost of secretaries, executives, health plans, equipment, etc. etc. etc.. etc.. Basically, the cost running a real business.

Marijuana growth is also much more labour intensive than tobacco growth. With tabacco, you are just harvesting the leaves. Harvesting buds takes a lot more attention and care. It also means a much smaller portion of the plant is usable goods. No way the price of a joint gets anywhere near a cigarette.

Then taxes would be thrown on top of that. Based on the precedents we have with cigarettes, the taxes would account for a large portion of the purchase price. I'm guessing 75% plus.

Not to mention security and transportation costs.

Do you allow marketing for these competiting products?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not to mention security and transportation costs.

Do you allow marketing for these competiting products?

There would always be some kind of marketing. Designing the packages, the name, focus groups, etc..

I just don't see the price of weed falling with legalization. I think most people would pay extra to avoid the hassle of dealing with drug dealers and the chances of getting arrested.

I also don't see legalization removing the element of organized crime. As others have said a black market would still exist. But more importantly, the motive to export to the US or do the infamous weed/coke swaps would still exist. These are the real nasty characters in the business anyways, and they would remain.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by blankall

No, he just admitted to being a drug dealer who buys his weed in 5 lbs shipments from the grow ops.....

I'll start by saying I don't buy it in 5lb quanities, just that if I did it would be a different price. Second I'm not a drug dealer, I wouldn't risk everything I have to be one, especially if it was just weed. I just smoke a ton of weed and prefer buying by the lb instead of wasting my money at $200/oz and I always know I have some so I'm not running around overpaying or buying crap. I'm a huge weed snob and won't even touch anything under Triple A quality.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

A legal operation is not going to use cheap set ups made of tin foil and plastic tubing. They also have to pay for real labour. I doubt scale would reduce the price at all.

Then you have to factor in the cost of advertising, paying for an office including the cost of secretaries, executives, health plans, equipment, etc. etc. etc.. etc.. Basically, the cost running a real business.

Marijuana growth is also much more labour intensive than tobacco growth. With tabacco, you are just harvesting the leaves. Harvesting buds takes a lot more attention and care. It also means a much smaller portion of the plant is usable goods. No way the price of a joint gets anywhere near a cigarette.

Then taxes would be thrown on top of that. Based on the precedents we have with cigarettes, the taxes would account for a large portion of the purchase price. I'm guessing 75% plus.

Frankly, and I don't mean this in any way as a personal attack, I don't think you're nearly as informed on this issue as you think you are.

I believe you have made some incorrect assumptions on the subject, and highly recommend you read the Rand research paper that I link in a post above.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by blankall

But knew guys who were buying top notch weed from the Okanagon at around $1,300 a pound in shipments of 5 lbs or so. They would then distribute this weed for $1,800-2,400 a lbs.

MOD EDIT: don't.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by blankall

A legal operation is not going to use cheap set ups made of tin foil and plastic tubing. They also have to pay for real labour. I doubt scale would reduce the price at all.

Then you have to factor in the cost of advertising, paying for an office including the cost of secretaries, executives, health plans, equipment, etc. etc. etc.. etc.. Basically, the cost running a real business.

Marijuana growth is also much more labour intensive than tobacco growth. With tabacco, you are just harvesting the leaves. Harvesting buds takes a lot more attention and care. It also means a much smaller portion of the plant is usable goods. No way the price of a joint gets anywhere near a cigarette.

Then taxes would be thrown on top of that. Based on the precedents we have with cigarettes, the taxes would account for a large portion of the purchase price. I'm guessing 75% plus.

Yes, they would be using better equipment... but they would be doing so with mass production in mind. How do you think McDonalds produces a double cheeseburger for $1.69? Could you do that at home? McDonalds no doubt has much more expensive equipment, no?

Also when you factor these taxes in, you are not considering the fact that marijuana can be consumed safely. It would not be something that leads to massive casualties like cigarettes do. There would be no back end costs in hospitals etc etc.

[Olao32]

Originally Posted by Puxlut

Someone I knew had the SWAT team raid their house... but it turns out their hobby was growning irises.

And the cops never had to pay for the damages they did to the house. And now their neighbours look at them funny.

Are you serious? You’d think there would be legal recourse for a situation like that assuming they did some serious damage to the home. You know damn well I’d be hiring a lawyer, then calling the news to apply a little pressure.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Frankly, and I don't mean this in any way as a personal attack, I don't think you're nearly as informed on this issue as you think you are.

I believe you have made some incorrect assumptions on the subject, and highly recommend you read the Rand research paper that I link in a post above.

I think a lot of research on the issue thus far is done under extremely biased circumstances.

People want marijuana to be legal so they skew research to fit their results. It's a pretty easy thing to do when you are dealing with hypothetical markets. Meanwhile comparable evidence from existing markets is being totally ignored. The Rand article you link to basically takes the cost of a grow op, extrapolates that to a larger scale, then concludes economies of scale would make it cheaper, and picks an arbitrary figure of 80% cheaper. It doesn't even mention many of the costs of running a real business.

The same kind of arguments go on in the context of the smoking debate. People calculating the "cost" of smoking to our health care system.

I do agree with the Rand report in that the government would benefit largely from legalization. They would move from a situation where they are paying large amounts of money to stop marijuana growing to one where they can heavily tax it.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Yes, they would be using better equipment... but they would be doing so with mass production in mind. How do you think McDonalds produces a double cheeseburger for $1.69? Could you do that at home? McDonalds no doubt has much more expensive equipment, no?

You can buy 1/10 of a pound of low quality ground beef at your local supermarket for much cheaper. So yes I could produce a tiny cheeseburger at home for less than $1.69. I could probably do it for under 50 cents.

If I was purchasing beef grown under illegal and unsafe conditions, I could probably do it even cheaper.

Originally Posted by alltherage

Also when you factor these taxes in, you are not considering the fact that marijuana can be consumed safely. It would not be something that leads to massive casualties like cigarettes do. There would be no back end costs in hospitals etc etc.

Do you really think the price of cigarettes is actually based on back end costs? It's been shown time and time again that cigarette smoking may actually save money to the health care system. Everyone dies of something. Dieing at the age of 70 vs. 90 saves the health care system massive amounts of money. Stroke and lung cancer (2 of the most common causes of smoking related deaths) are also extremely aggressive disease that kill you quickly. Much cheaper to die of a stroke or lung cancer at 70 than tax the system with prostate, liver, arthritis, etc.. issues through ages 70-90.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Yes, they would be using better equipment... but they would be doing so with mass production in mind. How do you think McDonalds produces a double cheeseburger for $1.69? Could you do that at home? McDonalds no doubt has much more expensive equipment, no?

Also when you factor these taxes in, you are not considering the fact that marijuana can be consumed safely. It would not be something that leads to massive casualties like cigarettes do. There would be no back end costs in hospitals etc etc.

Sorry, I don't buy the no back end effects.

there have been studies that show that there is a greater chance of developing lung cancer from smoking the stuff (University of New Zealand)


Anything that you smoke can contain Carcinogins.

Beyond that there are long term mental effects on moderate to heavy users.

If we tax it we can research it, plus I want the fricken tax revenue, the health system can use it.

If Canada has a vice tax then Grass falls under it.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sorry, I don't buy the no back end effects.

there have been studies that show that there is a greater chance of developing lung cancer from smoking the stuff (University of New Zealand)


Anything that you smoke can contain Carcinogins.

Beyond that there are long term mental effects on moderate to heavy users.

If we tax it we can research it, plus I want the fricken tax revenue, the health system can use it.

If Canada has a vice tax then Grass falls under it.

Again, I was talking about encourageing non-smoking consumtion methods by having a significantly lesser tax applied to them.

I said in my previous post that it would need to be taxed the same way as cigarettes if you are going to smoke it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Again, I was talking about encourageing non-smoking consumtion methods by having a significantly lesser tax applied to them.

I said in my previous post that it would need to be taxed the same way as cigarettes if you are going to smoke it.

And thats fine, but I remain firmly unconvinced that there is a difference in mental effects for moderate or heavy users when it comes to smoking vs inhaling over the long term.

I could make the similar argument that if I smoked light tar ultra light cigarettes that I should be taxed less then someone who smokes unfiltered flavor level cigarettes or cigars, but I'm not.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Again, I was talking about encourageing non-smoking consumtion methods by having a significantly lesser tax applied to them.

I said in my previous post that it would need to be taxed the same way as cigarettes if you are going to smoke it.

Smoking doesn't "need" to be taxed that way either. Governments do it because they can and because its easy to depict smoking as an evil vice.

There is no relation between the amount of tax on a cigarettes and the cost to the health care system. Both are arbitrary numbers.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by blankall

You can buy 1/10 of a pound of low quality ground beef at your local supermarket for much cheaper. So yes I could produce a tiny cheeseburger at home for less than $1.69. I could probably do it for under 50 cents.

If I was purchasing beef grown under illegal and unsafe conditions, I could probably do it even cheaper.




Do you really think the price of cigarettes is actually based on back end costs? It's been shown time and time again that cigarette smoking may actually save money to the health care system. Everyone dies of something. Dieing at the age of 70 vs. 90 saves the health care system massive amounts of money. Stroke and lung cancer (2 of the most common causes of smoking related deaths) are also extremely aggressive disease that kill you quickly. Much cheaper to die of a stroke or lung cancer at 70 than tax the system with prostate, liver, arthritis, etc.. issues through ages 70-90.

I've never seen beef sold by 1/10 of a pound. I've seen it for about $5 a pound. If your burger is 1/10 then the patty alone is $0.50. The you have to consider 2 patties... $1. Then you have to consider a bun... $0.30. Then you also have to consider the time it takes you to make it, the cost of your house for that 20 minutes or so, the electricity you use, the vegitables and condiments you put on it... by that time you are well above $1.69.

And Yes, the tax on cigarettes was niknamed the "sin" tax. It is taxed heavily because of the back end health costs, as well as the simple fact that they are trying to discourage people from smoking. The government doesnt want people to die slow horrible cancerous deaths. They have made the taxes prohibitively high.

I dont think they would do that with marijuana if it is being consumed in food, drinks, or from vaporizers where, again, there are zero proven health implications.

From that RAND study that Flash Walken posted:

• The pretax retail price of marijuana will substantially decline, likely by more than 80 percent.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think a lot of research on the issue thus far is done under extremely biased circumstances.

People want marijuana to be legal so they skew research to fit their results. It's a pretty easy thing to do when you are dealing with hypothetical markets. Meanwhile comparable evidence from existing markets is being totally ignored. The Rand article you link to basically takes the cost of a grow op, extrapolates that to a larger scale, then concludes economies of scale would make it cheaper, and picks an arbitrary figure of 80% cheaper. It doesn't even mention many of the costs of running a real business.

The same kind of arguments go on in the context of the smoking debate. People calculating the "cost" of smoking to our health care system.

I do agree with the Rand report in that the government would benefit largely from legalization. They would move from a situation where they are paying large amounts of money to stop marijuana growing to one where they can heavily tax it.

This is exactly what I meant.

You didn't even read the paper, and probably not even a cursory glance.

Your opinions are rigid, I'll give you that.