Azazello1313 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I think the state revenue aspects of this might be overblown by legalization advocates. like pot dealers are suddenly going to start reporting all of their income and submit to regulation and the black market will simply disappear. maybe that gradually happens over time as the market adjusts, maybe it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I just wondering where they are gonna get there worker pool from. All those dealers and growers might finally get to go legit huh? hahahahahaa....hey man more power to em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I think the state revenue aspects of this might be overblown by legalization advocates. like pot dealers are suddenly going to start reporting all of their income and submit to regulation and the black market will simply disappear. maybe that gradually happens over time as the market adjusts, maybe it doesn't. You might be right at first, but if it's legal, I would think it would eventually be a cash crop just like tobacco. Farmers would grow it and probably sell it to larger corporations to avoid the packaging/distribution headaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Perch if I suspect a employee of being drunk or high at work we give them the option, and THC DOES show up on an immediate blood test. It really is no different than saying "you cant drink at work" and clearly establish that in your employee rules and regualtions if you want to work at my company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 (edited) You might be right at first, but if it's legal, I would think it would eventually be a cash crop just like tobacco. Farmers would grow it and probably sell it to larger corporations to avoid the packaging/distribution headaches. yeah, but think about it....if it's highly taxed (as proponents say, talking about all the revenue it will generate), and all of the enforcement goes away (as proponents say, talking about all the money it will save), AND you've already got this whole underground economy built up around the black market....what exactly is the motivation for growers, distributors, and sellers to go legit? I can see some motivation in the form of negative legal sanction (assuming much of the law enforcement apparatus remains, but shifts from selling and possessing to evading taxes and regulation), but will that be enough to get them to pay taxes and end their whole countercultural outlook? I'm not sure, but I think it certainly presents a challenge. Edited May 8, 2009 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 yeah, but think about it....if it's highly taxed (as proponents say, talking about all the revenue it will generate), and all of the enforcement goes away (as proponents say, talking about all the money it will save), AND you've already got this whole underground economy built up around the black market....what exactly is the motivation for growers, distributors, and sellers to go legit? I can see some motivation (assuming much of the law enforcement remains, but shifts from selling and possessing to exading taxes and regulation), but will that be enough to get them to pay taxes and end their whole countercultural outlook? I'm not sure, but I think it certainly presents a challenge. There will still be drug enforcement for items such as meth and cocaine, but the amount of time and money to arrest, prosecute and jail pot users/growers would be a large decrease. I am not sure about the countercultural aspect . . and I dont know enough about Amsterdam and their drug scene to compare. While you would still get radicals that want to grow it themselves and refuse to pay taxes (just like there are still people in Appalachia that distill their own moonshine and grow their own pot) the MAJORITY would see it as a cash crop opportunity and revenue stimulator. Hell, what are taxes on a pack of cigarettes now? How different is growing pot versus growing tobacco? If the price of pot went down from 50 bucks to 10 bucks because the overhead for illegal smuggling and selling was eliminated, where is the profit in illegal production and distribution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 There will still be drug enforcement for items such as meth and cocaine, but the amount of time and money to arrest, prosecute and jail pot users/growers would be a large decrease. I am not sure about the countercultural aspect . . and I dont know enough about Amsterdam and their drug scene to compare. While you would still get radicals that want to grow it themselves and refuse to pay taxes (just like there are still people in Appalachia that distill their own moonshine and grow their own pot) the MAJORITY would see it as a cash crop opportunity and revenue stimulator. Hell, what are taxes on a pack of cigarettes now? How different is growing pot versus growing tobacco? If the price of pot went down from 50 bucks to 10 bucks because the overhead for illegal smuggling and selling was eliminated, where is the profit in illegal production and distribution? well if, as you say in your first sentence, there's a large decrease in time and money spent on prosecuting pot growers/sellers because it's no longer a criminalized substance, well then your overhead for illegal smuggling and selling already went way down without ever having to go legit. I think the bottom line is that, at least initially, they would have to really ramp up enforcement and prosecution on non-corforming growing/selling. they'd have to maintain stiff penalties for selling "non-approved" product, and really go after the underground market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 well if, as you say in your first sentence, there's a large decrease in time and money spent on prosecuting pot growers/sellers because it's no longer a criminalized substance, well then your overhead for illegal smuggling and selling already went way down without ever having to go legit. I think the bottom line is that, at least initially, they would have to really ramp up enforcement and prosecution on non-corforming growing/selling. they'd have to maintain stiff penalties for selling "non-approved" product, and really go after the underground market. But if I now can get an ounce for $10 from the drugstore/QT, or better yet a package of 20 cigs for $5, that kills a lot of the incentive for the folks to grow and sell it doesn't it? Economies of scale would likely kill the small grower unless he simply grows it for himself, I would think. And setting aside the tax revenue, I would think the easing of the burden on the police/courts/jails would be a significant savings in and of themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 If the state puts some sort of restriction on the THC levels to be sold publicly, then I can see where the black market would come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missoula Griz Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 This ? would make the Huddle more interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.