Legal marijuana sales forecast to hit $23B in 4 years(usatoday.com)
usatoday.com
Legal marijuana sales forecast to hit $23B in 4 years
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/03/20/legal-marijuana-sales-forecast-hit-23b-4-years/82046018/
132 comments
yeah, in retrospect it's obvious. How do you get any "vice" legalized. You figure out how municipalities and states can tax the fuck out of it.
> and limit new businesses
> popping up
No, it's probably going to turn into the same thing that's happened with liquor laws in the US where some states have state ABC boards and you can only buy the very specific liquors that are on the approved list and only at the state-run liquor stores. Even states that don't have state-run liquor stores have very strict importing and distribution rules which leads to three steps between the distiller and the store, with each step taking money off the top and paying taxes.
The difference is that unlike building your own expensive and potentially dangerous liquor still, a personal supply of cannabis can just be grown in a sunny plot of land, or if you want to get real fancy, with indoor growing equipment that also has "legitimate" uses. It is a weed, after all.
Which also takes time, energy and depending on how much you grow, a possibly higher energy bill at the end of the month.
I know for years, cops used to co-ordinate with the local energy companies to spot houses that were suddenly spiking with energy usage and tip off the cops.
This ran into issues of guys trying to tap into their neighbors HVAC system or AC system to get more power and stay off the energy companies list. I would go out on a limb and say doing stuff like that is just as dangerous as having an illegal still.
I know for years, cops used to co-ordinate with the local energy companies to spot houses that were suddenly spiking with energy usage and tip off the cops.
This ran into issues of guys trying to tap into their neighbors HVAC system or AC system to get more power and stay off the energy companies list. I would go out on a limb and say doing stuff like that is just as dangerous as having an illegal still.
That goes beyond a "personal supply", though. Check out "space buckets".
For comparison: tobacco is a $600B industry annually.
Terrifying, as the distribution of marijuana in the United States remains a federal crime, allowing anyone in this industry to be legally locked up at any time by the feds.
Someone once told me that this is how most of China operates; there are many common day-to-day things (such as money transfers) that close to 100% of the population engages in that are completely illegal, yet tolerated. When a person does something that the state disagrees with for any reason, legal or otherwise, the entirely legal option to lock them up for one of the unrelated common activities (which are illegal) is used.
Someone once told me that this is how most of China operates; there are many common day-to-day things (such as money transfers) that close to 100% of the population engages in that are completely illegal, yet tolerated. When a person does something that the state disagrees with for any reason, legal or otherwise, the entirely legal option to lock them up for one of the unrelated common activities (which are illegal) is used.
A way to "solve" this might be (and it'd be incredibly hard) to give a constitutional right for "uneven exercise of the law" or something of that sort to be a defence against most charges: If you could demonstrate that cases are selectively investigated or prosecuted other than by clear, published standards (e.g. based on amount of available evidence), the law in question should be considered null and void until the legislative has affirmed it again.
It'd be difficult to get something like that just right so that the bar is high enough (no chance of getting laws stricken down just because police is under-unded and has to prioritise and are trying their best) but still low enough to prevent abuse, and it'd put a burden of collecting a lot of statistics and do a lot of analysis on police to ensure they don't have undue biases, but it's work they should be doing anyway.
There'd still be the option of the legislative to intentionally pass the laws again, scold the police and do nothing to actually change things, but if the bar is low enough and it happens with a lot of laws, they'd be swamped...
Another thing I'd like to see is a legal requirement that laws comes with a set of pre- and post-conditions that the law is based on. E.g. "Given that it's proven that X causes Y effect, we pass this law" and "The intent of this law is to achieve a X reduction in Y behaviour within Z timerame", and give courts the power to suspend laws where the conditions provably don't hold...
Requiring laws to be regularly re-affirmed would be another fun thing - forcing people to go on record voting for a law that today sounds antiquated and that their opponents would use to club them over the head with in the press might substantially increase the chances of having bad laws stricken down... Even "just" requiring laws to be re-affirmed if X years have gone with less than Y prosecutions would be a big deal.
A lot of problems are down to legislatives being able to pass laws and then largely wash their hands of the whole thing and not worry about the consequences or whether or not the laws have the desired effect as long as it doesn't affect the people voting for them too much. Unfortunately that's also exactly the reason we're unlikely to see it happen - it's not in their interest to have to consider the fallout.
It'd be difficult to get something like that just right so that the bar is high enough (no chance of getting laws stricken down just because police is under-unded and has to prioritise and are trying their best) but still low enough to prevent abuse, and it'd put a burden of collecting a lot of statistics and do a lot of analysis on police to ensure they don't have undue biases, but it's work they should be doing anyway.
There'd still be the option of the legislative to intentionally pass the laws again, scold the police and do nothing to actually change things, but if the bar is low enough and it happens with a lot of laws, they'd be swamped...
Another thing I'd like to see is a legal requirement that laws comes with a set of pre- and post-conditions that the law is based on. E.g. "Given that it's proven that X causes Y effect, we pass this law" and "The intent of this law is to achieve a X reduction in Y behaviour within Z timerame", and give courts the power to suspend laws where the conditions provably don't hold...
Requiring laws to be regularly re-affirmed would be another fun thing - forcing people to go on record voting for a law that today sounds antiquated and that their opponents would use to club them over the head with in the press might substantially increase the chances of having bad laws stricken down... Even "just" requiring laws to be re-affirmed if X years have gone with less than Y prosecutions would be a big deal.
A lot of problems are down to legislatives being able to pass laws and then largely wash their hands of the whole thing and not worry about the consequences or whether or not the laws have the desired effect as long as it doesn't affect the people voting for them too much. Unfortunately that's also exactly the reason we're unlikely to see it happen - it's not in their interest to have to consider the fallout.
There is a "selective prosecution" defense [1]. In tax law, there is a "selective enforcement" defense [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution
[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1933943
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution
[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1933943
Selective prosecution isn't much of a defense, as you'll see if you read the linked article.
It is a very precarious situation which I think extends beyond the marijuana industry, even in the US. What you said about China reminded me of the book Three Felonies A Day, which explains how modern federal crime laws put US citizens in a similar position of being extorted at the whims of the state.
It seems like there could be an opportunity for some kind of mutual aid arrangement -- an insurance policy of sorts -- that could underwrite the legal fees for a member who happens to get busted.
It seems like there could be an opportunity for some kind of mutual aid arrangement -- an insurance policy of sorts -- that could underwrite the legal fees for a member who happens to get busted.
You might try to make the argument that if enforecement is highly inconsistent that it's being done with bias. Not sure a judge would agree but it seems to be a reasonable argument. If the Feds are not enforcing a law, what's the point of the law?
Similar to how trademarks can be voided if they are not consistently defended.
Edit: written before I saw vidarth's comment.
Similar to how trademarks can be voided if they are not consistently defended.
Edit: written before I saw vidarth's comment.
It is probably a primary indication of a corrupt state, as it allows for selective law application.
"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law." – Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru.
"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law." – Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru.
What scares me is that we've pursued this in such 'medical' terms.
It really influences how people think. Remember when it seemed insane to see advertisments about how "8 out of 10 doctors recommend ___ brand cigarettes"?
It doesn't seem crazy to me now that there is so much "health" based marketing around marijuana.
It really influences how people think. Remember when it seemed insane to see advertisments about how "8 out of 10 doctors recommend ___ brand cigarettes"?
It doesn't seem crazy to me now that there is so much "health" based marketing around marijuana.
And how the tobacco companies are evil and terrible but hey! Wanna smoke pot? That's all GOOD!
Marijuana should be legal but discouraged, not permitted to be advertised, put in plain packaging, kept behind counters and not turned into novelty products that appeal to teenagers like foods.
Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.
Marijuana should be legal but discouraged, not permitted to be advertised, put in plain packaging, kept behind counters and not turned into novelty products that appeal to teenagers like foods.
Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.
> Marijuana should be legal but discouraged, not permitted to be advertised, put in plain packaging, kept behind counters and not turned into novelty products that appeal to teenagers like foods.
All of these requirements are implemented in the Washington state roll out. Re: discouraged, there are radio ads warning parents to talk to their kids about the dangers of marijuana. There is zero advertising and everything is behind counters at special stores that don't sell anything else.
> Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.
Hey, why leave out the other big sin drug? Alcohol gets a lot more free roam in advertising and sale/visibility in stores minors can visit.
All of these requirements are implemented in the Washington state roll out. Re: discouraged, there are radio ads warning parents to talk to their kids about the dangers of marijuana. There is zero advertising and everything is behind counters at special stores that don't sell anything else.
> Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.
Hey, why leave out the other big sin drug? Alcohol gets a lot more free roam in advertising and sale/visibility in stores minors can visit.
I live in Washington State and there is advertising. Giant billboards for pot companies. They don't directly advertise smoking pot, but who's kidding, everyone knows what they're advertising...
Yeah, this is pushing the line... I'm surprised something like that slipped through the regulations. There's no need to allow billboard advertising of any kind.
http://www.kplu.org/post/seattle-sees-first-marijuana-billbo...
http://www.kplu.org/post/seattle-sees-first-marijuana-billbo...
Looking at the bigger picture (if your intent is decreasing harm), I would work on limiting the alcohol advertising before trying to hinder the already limited marijuana advertising.
Let's also ban advertising for prescription drugs while we're at it too. America and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow this and it's turned pharma companies into pill pushers instead of companies trying to find and produce cures for real diseases...
>Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.
For one, you don't have to smoke it (where the majority of negative health effects come from). You can eat it, steep it, drink it.
Comparing it to tobacco is ridiculous.
For one, you don't have to smoke it (where the majority of negative health effects come from). You can eat it, steep it, drink it.
Comparing it to tobacco is ridiculous.
you can also insufflate or chew tobacco. i don't find the comparison ridiculous at all. both contain psychoactive subtances, and can lead to serious health issues, or a decline in quality of life (tobacco of course being more dangerous than weed).
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances ever studied. THC is not physiologically addictive.
are you serious? thc and nicotine are two different drugs. they are different. they do different things. and the sky is blue and 2 plus 2 equals 4.
you don't have to smoke cannabis to get thc. you can eat it, and many people do.
if you just don't like the idea of it, that's one thing and completely understandable, but claiming (even rhetorically) it's the same as tobacco is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on hn.
you don't have to smoke cannabis to get thc. you can eat it, and many people do.
if you just don't like the idea of it, that's one thing and completely understandable, but claiming (even rhetorically) it's the same as tobacco is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on hn.
> are you serious? thc and nicotine are two different drugs. they are different. they do different things. and the sky is blue and 2 plus 2 equals 4.
They are different, but they have many similarities. They're used under similar circumstances. The business model around them is very similar. I would expect the industry that forms around it to ultimately behave very much like the tobacco/alcohol/etc. industries, and so it is weird to treat one differently from the other. Or do you think there are important differences?
They are different, but they have many similarities. They're used under similar circumstances. The business model around them is very similar. I would expect the industry that forms around it to ultimately behave very much like the tobacco/alcohol/etc. industries, and so it is weird to treat one differently from the other. Or do you think there are important differences?
I seriously doubt marijuana consumers tolerate harmful chemical additives. I expect marijuana businesses to behave about as badly as the average business, but I doubt they'll manage to be as hideously evil as the tobacco companies.
And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?
And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?
>I seriously doubt marijuana consumers tolerate harmful chemical additives.
Why would they be any different from tobacco consumers?
>I expect marijuana businesses to behave about as badly as the average business, but I doubt they'll manage to be as hideously evil as the tobacco companies.
Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?
>And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?
They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?
Why would they be any different from tobacco consumers?
>I expect marijuana businesses to behave about as badly as the average business, but I doubt they'll manage to be as hideously evil as the tobacco companies.
Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?
>And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?
They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?
> Why would they be any different from tobacco consumers?
Marijuana attracts an earthy, naturalistic sort of crowd. I have no proof of this, but it's been my experience.
> Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?
The health risks of marijuana are much better understood now than the health risks of tobacco (more particularly cigarettes) were in the 1950s. There's simply less room to lie, for one thing, which was far and away the most atrocious thing that Big Tobacco did. And the mere fact that marijuana has been illegal for so long and developed its own culture underground makes it hard to compare.
> They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?
In Europe it's common to mix the two, but for most Americans no. I usually smoked alone anyway, it's not a social thing at all for many. You're really comparing apples to oranges here. Marijuana and tobacco as different as LSD and beer in terms of their effects.
Marijuana attracts an earthy, naturalistic sort of crowd. I have no proof of this, but it's been my experience.
> Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?
The health risks of marijuana are much better understood now than the health risks of tobacco (more particularly cigarettes) were in the 1950s. There's simply less room to lie, for one thing, which was far and away the most atrocious thing that Big Tobacco did. And the mere fact that marijuana has been illegal for so long and developed its own culture underground makes it hard to compare.
> They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?
In Europe it's common to mix the two, but for most Americans no. I usually smoked alone anyway, it's not a social thing at all for many. You're really comparing apples to oranges here. Marijuana and tobacco as different as LSD and beer in terms of their effects.
I don't know why you wouldn't think he was serious. I think you are ignoring that the vast majority of people that use pot smoke it. In that sense, it's probably worse because most people that smoke weed tend to hold the smoke in their lungs for protracted periods of time which increases the amount of tar that gets in their lungs.
I know this is completely anecdotal, but I think casual pot smokers do about two or three bong hits a night versus sneaking out for an entire cigarette twenty times a day.
To pile onto the anecdote wagon:
The heaviest pot smokers I know (and I know a lot, though I don't generally use, myself), will consume it as much as four or five times a day. As you note, one "usage" looks like a few hits off of a pipe, bong, or vape. It seems to be self-limiting, even in people with a history of addiction.
I'm not gonna suggest pot doesn't have negative consequences; the heaviest users I know also have motivation problems (but so do I, sometimes, and I don't do any drugs) which maybe contributes to them often having shitty jobs and a difficult hand-to-mouth existence. (But, that is correlation and not causation. Maybe the economy is shit, and young folks today have a hard time finding good work. Maybe smoking pot just makes it bearable.)
What's interesting to me is what happens when a pot smoker can't get pot. Among my friends, cigarette smoking goes way up, drinking goes up measurably, and use of other drugs goes up. I'd be willing to believe pot is a good tool for helping people quit more dangerous habits. People who need something help them get through stress/anxiety/pain (emotional or physical) will find something.
The heaviest pot smokers I know (and I know a lot, though I don't generally use, myself), will consume it as much as four or five times a day. As you note, one "usage" looks like a few hits off of a pipe, bong, or vape. It seems to be self-limiting, even in people with a history of addiction.
I'm not gonna suggest pot doesn't have negative consequences; the heaviest users I know also have motivation problems (but so do I, sometimes, and I don't do any drugs) which maybe contributes to them often having shitty jobs and a difficult hand-to-mouth existence. (But, that is correlation and not causation. Maybe the economy is shit, and young folks today have a hard time finding good work. Maybe smoking pot just makes it bearable.)
What's interesting to me is what happens when a pot smoker can't get pot. Among my friends, cigarette smoking goes way up, drinking goes up measurably, and use of other drugs goes up. I'd be willing to believe pot is a good tool for helping people quit more dangerous habits. People who need something help them get through stress/anxiety/pain (emotional or physical) will find something.
[deleted]
My classmates, which are started to smoke marijuana in school, now are dead (I am 40 years old). They die not because of tar or something like that, but because they switched to heavy drugs.
What's your point?
It is fact from my life. 4 my classmates started to smoke in school, when they were 14 years old. Then somebody told them how to make cheap drug from papaver, which is called «shirka» there. Now they are dead.
Could be the gateway argument, that smoking less harmful stuff leads to harder stuff.
An argument I would attempt to counter - the market is the gateway. The dealer you buy your illegal cannabis from often also sells 'harder' drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.
[deleted]
>> claiming (even rhetorically) it's the same as tobacco is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on hn
Fools read and hear what they want to hear and then make something up and say that's what was said.
Tobacco - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.
Pot - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.
Fools read and hear what they want to hear and then make something up and say that's what was said.
Tobacco - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.
Pot - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.
i don't think that's how science determines if two things are the same. i think you just made that up because it sounds clever. unfortunately, that's not how things work in reality.
i also don't think you understand that you don't have to smoke pot. you can eat it. in medicine this is called 'oral administration'. you can't just ignore facts you don't like, that's not how medicine and science work.
most drugs are eaten. pot is a drug. you can eat it. you can use drugs to treats disease and symptoms. therefore, you can use pot to treat diseases and symptoms... by eating it.
i don't understand what your mental disconnect is, other than you just don't like the idea of pot, which is fine, but you should just say that, because then it becomes a moral argument, which is what you're trying to have, rather than a medical one, which is pretty black and white - pot is a drug, and you can use drugs to treat diseases and symptoms. that's pretty much a fact. again, i'm not really sure where the disconnect here is for you. this is a pretty simple logical chain. maybe you don't consider pot to be a drug?
i've never met anyone who doesn't think pot is a drug, but i suppose it's possible.
but really i think you just don't like the idea of it, which is a perfectly respectable opinion to have.
i also don't think you understand that you don't have to smoke pot. you can eat it. in medicine this is called 'oral administration'. you can't just ignore facts you don't like, that's not how medicine and science work.
most drugs are eaten. pot is a drug. you can eat it. you can use drugs to treats disease and symptoms. therefore, you can use pot to treat diseases and symptoms... by eating it.
i don't understand what your mental disconnect is, other than you just don't like the idea of pot, which is fine, but you should just say that, because then it becomes a moral argument, which is what you're trying to have, rather than a medical one, which is pretty black and white - pot is a drug, and you can use drugs to treat diseases and symptoms. that's pretty much a fact. again, i'm not really sure where the disconnect here is for you. this is a pretty simple logical chain. maybe you don't consider pot to be a drug?
i've never met anyone who doesn't think pot is a drug, but i suppose it's possible.
but really i think you just don't like the idea of it, which is a perfectly respectable opinion to have.
I don't care if people want to smoke pot. I think it's a waste of life and you'll get more out of life straight than stoned but I really don't care what others choose to do with their own lives. In fact I am very much supportive of full legalisation of sale and possession of ALL drugs except meth, despite the fact that the only drugs I take are alcohol and coffee.
No matter how it is ingested, marijuana is like all drugs and pose a health risk if not taken in moderation.
Health risks from smoking it (and most people do smoke it), and no matter how you ingest it, mental health risks.
This is not a harmless drug and there will come a time in future where there are court cases brought by marijuana sellers for selling a toxic product - in the same way that tobacco has been brought to trial. My key argument is that marijuana should be sold under the counter to meet a need that is kept hidden from society and young people, but is freely available to adults who know it is there. Selling it, advertising it, displaying it in a shopfront, making it fun and cool are all really bad ways to go.
No matter how it is ingested, marijuana is like all drugs and pose a health risk if not taken in moderation.
Health risks from smoking it (and most people do smoke it), and no matter how you ingest it, mental health risks.
This is not a harmless drug and there will come a time in future where there are court cases brought by marijuana sellers for selling a toxic product - in the same way that tobacco has been brought to trial. My key argument is that marijuana should be sold under the counter to meet a need that is kept hidden from society and young people, but is freely available to adults who know it is there. Selling it, advertising it, displaying it in a shopfront, making it fun and cool are all really bad ways to go.
It's a LOT less harmful than tobacco. It also is usable in many non-smoking forms. Tobacco chew and snuff still give you cancer. But, since USA has outlawed research there is ver limited data on how not bad cannabis is.
And so does India. Marijuana was legal in India til 1985 then US government forced Indian government criminalize it.
The USA did the same thing in the early nineties in Laos when it started to open up.
Why did the US gvmnt do that?
If you go from the assumption that marijuana is almost as bad as cocaine and heroin — which a lot of policy makers and beurocrats pretty sincerely believed — it makes total sense.
No one actually believes that. Not anyone with any kind of power anyways.
Past and present tense usually refer to different time intervals.
That generation grew up earnestly believing that a single toke would drive you irrevocably insane, to murder, to rape, to jump from a tenth story window.
Watch "Reefer Madness" - it's reflective of the mindset these policymakers grew up with.
If you want to understand where that mindset ultimately came from, look at the history of cocaine prohibition - it boils down to racial politics.
Watch "Reefer Madness" - it's reflective of the mindset these policymakers grew up with.
If you want to understand where that mindset ultimately came from, look at the history of cocaine prohibition - it boils down to racial politics.
No one smart ever believed that. Dumb people believed (and still do) that. Politicians just seized the opportunity to score some points. Same thing happens now with different topics.
Let us not judge those people as dumb please. I believed so because my parents, teachers and other government experts who visited school told me the same and I had no intention to find out myself.
It is only in modern times as I read more I learned the truth. Not everyone has time to educate themselves on these issues which many not concern them.
It is only in modern times as I read more I learned the truth. Not everyone has time to educate themselves on these issues which many not concern them.
The US uses the DEA to project political power into areas where a military presence would be rejected
My question was why did the US government do that.
>Why did the US government do that?
Prohibition has many causes. The international treaty / 'Single Convention' was the first international treaty to prohibit cannabis.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research. As noted below, its major effects included updating the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931 to include the vast number of synthetic opioids invented in the intervening thirty years and a mechanism for more easily including new ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
Prohibition has many causes. The international treaty / 'Single Convention' was the first international treaty to prohibit cannabis.
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research. As noted below, its major effects included updating the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931 to include the vast number of synthetic opioids invented in the intervening thirty years and a mechanism for more easily including new ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...
I have the same question as another poster - why would the US government want to do it?
yeah but that's what every government, and many employers, do, everywhere. it's a basic PR strategy for exercising power.
hell, that's even what people do to each other when they want to break up a relationship. your s.o. did something you really can't stand, or maybe you're just over it, but don't want to admit it? blame it on all the other stuff that accumulated over the past 3 years.
hell, that's even what people do to each other when they want to break up a relationship. your s.o. did something you really can't stand, or maybe you're just over it, but don't want to admit it? blame it on all the other stuff that accumulated over the past 3 years.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Say what you want about ending the drug war, but I'm not quite in support of creating a whole new tobacco industry.
The pot industry exists and has existed for some time. Currently what is happening is highly fragmented tax-paying American outfits are replacing Mexican cartels as the production source, so that's at least a Good Thing. Even if it was legalized at the Federal level I'm not sure we would see a big-tobacco approach to growing pot.
Keep in mind this article is talking about growth of the state-legal pot industry, not growth of the overall pot industry (legal or otherwise) which I think must be growing, but more like at single digit percentage rates.
Keep in mind this article is talking about growth of the state-legal pot industry, not growth of the overall pot industry (legal or otherwise) which I think must be growing, but more like at single digit percentage rates.
The industry was already there, we just have a much nicer set of owners now. Less beheadings.
Marijuana is far less addictive and because users smoke much less marijuana than they do tobacco, the health impacts are far less severe. Not to mention that a new tobacco industry would be preferable to the double whammy of the erosion of civil liberties, government, society, and human lives caused by the war on drugs and the financial windfall to cartels that illegal drugs have represented.
A stopgap measure would be banning public advertisements for the entire industry and taxing tge industry to fund education and rehabilitation.
The US could use a new market to add to the economy that is for sure. A large majority of people in the US support it at 58% for all, 64% under 50, 71% under 35 [1]
However with the surveillance society we live in, we need to rid the books of laws that most people break otherwise there will be a sea of non-violent crimes that don't make logical sense today. Laws as deterrents for moralistic or non-violent acts do not work but make it more unsafe in this case, you regulate and tax to make it safer and more about support/new markets rather than incarceration which is a drain on the economy.
The black market created by the war on drugs does not operate better or safer for kids, nor add tax revenues or regulations for safety. It funds cartels.
We have been doing it wrong for a long time.
Look how much money yearly has been going to the black market, cartels and diverted from benefits like school funding, support and regulation. Public university funding is plummeting along with K-12 [2][3]
This is only the start of it as well, probably in the hundreds of billions have been going to black markets/cartels. This cannot continue, legalization and regulation is the only way. I can't believe it is this slow now that there is this much money in it for revenues in a time of local/state huge budget shortages and most of all stopping funding of cartels. This moralistic prohibition is just as bad as the first prohibition in creating lucrative crime markets and attacking personal freedom.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
[2] http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-cut...
[3] http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-university...
However with the surveillance society we live in, we need to rid the books of laws that most people break otherwise there will be a sea of non-violent crimes that don't make logical sense today. Laws as deterrents for moralistic or non-violent acts do not work but make it more unsafe in this case, you regulate and tax to make it safer and more about support/new markets rather than incarceration which is a drain on the economy.
The black market created by the war on drugs does not operate better or safer for kids, nor add tax revenues or regulations for safety. It funds cartels.
We have been doing it wrong for a long time.
Look how much money yearly has been going to the black market, cartels and diverted from benefits like school funding, support and regulation. Public university funding is plummeting along with K-12 [2][3]
This is only the start of it as well, probably in the hundreds of billions have been going to black markets/cartels. This cannot continue, legalization and regulation is the only way. I can't believe it is this slow now that there is this much money in it for revenues in a time of local/state huge budget shortages and most of all stopping funding of cartels. This moralistic prohibition is just as bad as the first prohibition in creating lucrative crime markets and attacking personal freedom.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx
[2] http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-cut...
[3] http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-university...
> However with the surveillance society we live in
Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Convention of Human Rights
Or you could change the US constitution so that it includes a right to privacy and data protection, like the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the European Convention of Human Rights
It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely to matter.
Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.
Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.
The constitution doesn't have the word privacy anywhere in it. And the 4th amendment is worded as a specific protection against " searches" and "seizures" not surveillance.
Same in Germany. Our Constitution Court invented a basic right to privacy in the 50s.
Some years ago they got really modern and invented a second basic right, the "basic right to guarenteeing the confidentiality and integrity of data-processing systems".
Some years ago they got really modern and invented a second basic right, the "basic right to guarenteeing the confidentiality and integrity of data-processing systems".
Freedom of movement isn't in there, either. Nor is the freedom to use math to secure your documents. Are you claiming these are not rights?
Freedom of movement is in the constitution (all state citizens get the privileges of the several states).
The freedom to use math is as much of a freedom as the freedom to use physics to move things with your hands (that is to say: pretty independent of what one would call a freedom from a legal perspective).
The freedom to secure your documents is also a freedom insofar as the constitution does not seem to grant the government a way to prevent you from doing so (10th amendment). But hey, there's been some creative applications of the commerce clause in the past.
The freedom to use math is as much of a freedom as the freedom to use physics to move things with your hands (that is to say: pretty independent of what one would call a freedom from a legal perspective).
The freedom to secure your documents is also a freedom insofar as the constitution does not seem to grant the government a way to prevent you from doing so (10th amendment). But hey, there's been some creative applications of the commerce clause in the past.
Freedom to use encryption I think falls squarely under the first amendment, because it's a way of communicating with other people. Freedom of movement has been held to fall under the privileges and immunities clause, which is at least plausible considering that one of the purposes of the constitution was to eliminate interstate barriers to trade.
But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works.
And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
But privacy? I don't think such a right exists, at least not in its modern formulation. You can't find modern articulations of the idea in contemporaneous works.
And that's a big deal. If you're going to say that a 200-year old document prohibits a democratically-elected Congress and President from setting policy, you better prove that the folks who wrote that document intended that prohibition. Democracy is supposed to be the general rule; Constitutional rights the exception.
You don't think it's a stretch to find freedom of movement in the privileges and immunities clause?
Here it is, in its entirety:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Huh. So travel is in there but not privacy?
I just love to watch the gymnastics of making rights enumerated and government powers unlimited and unrestrained except by a list of rights granted by government to the people.
Here it is, in its entirety:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Huh. So travel is in there but not privacy?
I just love to watch the gymnastics of making rights enumerated and government powers unlimited and unrestrained except by a list of rights granted by government to the people.
The privileges and immunities clause says that states must give the same privileges to citizens of other states that they do to their own citizens. Since states have always allowed free entry and exit to their own citizens (and indeed, the right to enter is intrinsic to the concept of citizenship), it follows that states cannot restrict the freedom of citizens of other states to enter the state. And the right to travel is moreover consistent with what the framers were trying to do with the Constitution: tear down internal barriers between states.
Privacy does not fit in there because no state has ever granted its own citizens the notion of privacy espoused by certain modern proponents of the "right." Nor can you read the contemporaneous works of the framers and see any discussion of this idea that people should be able to keep certain information private from the government. Instead, in the 4th amendment you see a much narrower concept: that the government shouldn't be able to trespass on your property without a warrant.
Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean you can make up a right and say the Constitution protects it. The right has to come from somewhere. Otherwise, "rights" become an end-run around democracy. Oh, ACA is unconstitutional because people have a "right" not to be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, you can't require background checks for gun purchases, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting them, because the Second Amendment prohibits that.
Privacy does not fit in there because no state has ever granted its own citizens the notion of privacy espoused by certain modern proponents of the "right." Nor can you read the contemporaneous works of the framers and see any discussion of this idea that people should be able to keep certain information private from the government. Instead, in the 4th amendment you see a much narrower concept: that the government shouldn't be able to trespass on your property without a warrant.
Not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. But that doesn't mean you can make up a right and say the Constitution protects it. The right has to come from somewhere. Otherwise, "rights" become an end-run around democracy. Oh, ACA is unconstitutional because people have a "right" not to be forced to buy health insurance. Oh, you can't require background checks for gun purchases, despite the vast majority of Americans supporting them, because the Second Amendment prohibits that.
> Privacy does not fit in there because no state has ever granted its own citizens the notion of privacy espoused by certain modern proponents of the "right."
So, if a state did that, we would have a right to privacy from, at least, state and local government? We would only have to worry about federal warrants? That would be a step forward. And do we not have a federal right to travel? Would internal passports be kosher? Residency permits?
As for the framers and encryption, some of them knew how to encrypt documents and did in fact use cryptograms to encrypt their notes, not for communications purposes, and would not have hesitated to use cryptograms against government investigations. One-time pads were developed in the 19th c. and remain unbreakable if properly implemented.
But that's beside the point. They surely did not have airplanes, and if you adhere to reasonable regulations, you have a right to fly through the air, found nowhere in the Constitution.
Also, as far as I know, it's not a crime not to buy health insurance. I'd be taxed for not doing so. Background checks, like the required training for pilots, would be a reasonable regulation. As long as the laws are not discriminatory or impose a de facto prohibition, they are constitutional. This is unlike some of the laws regulating abortion providers that are clearly meant to drive them out of business. Those are unconstitutional, because women have a right to control their bodies derived from the right to privacy.
So, if a state did that, we would have a right to privacy from, at least, state and local government? We would only have to worry about federal warrants? That would be a step forward. And do we not have a federal right to travel? Would internal passports be kosher? Residency permits?
As for the framers and encryption, some of them knew how to encrypt documents and did in fact use cryptograms to encrypt their notes, not for communications purposes, and would not have hesitated to use cryptograms against government investigations. One-time pads were developed in the 19th c. and remain unbreakable if properly implemented.
But that's beside the point. They surely did not have airplanes, and if you adhere to reasonable regulations, you have a right to fly through the air, found nowhere in the Constitution.
Also, as far as I know, it's not a crime not to buy health insurance. I'd be taxed for not doing so. Background checks, like the required training for pilots, would be a reasonable regulation. As long as the laws are not discriminatory or impose a de facto prohibition, they are constitutional. This is unlike some of the laws regulating abortion providers that are clearly meant to drive them out of business. Those are unconstitutional, because women have a right to control their bodies derived from the right to privacy.
There's big differences. US 4th Amendment is similar to Article 7. However Article 8 covers things that aren't in the US constitution, e.g. the requirement for an independent authority to ensure compliance, the right to access the data, the right for it to be accurate, the requirement that data is processed fairly for specific purposes on the basis of the (informed, unambiguous) consent of the person.
And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
And the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to non-US people who aren't in the USA.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has found that US data protection law is significantly lacking compared to CFREU. If the US 4th Amendment was the same as the CFREU then there wouldn't have been that Safe Harbour case.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights...
This[1] 2015 study from the European Parliament explains how the US 4th Amendment is not at all comparable to EU data protection law (& charter rights).
Basically (i) 4th doesn't apply to use EU citizens, and (ii) it, unlike the CFREU, doesn't apply to data you turn over to 3rd parties, like financial records to your bank, whereas Article 8 does.
[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921...
Basically (i) 4th doesn't apply to use EU citizens, and (ii) it, unlike the CFREU, doesn't apply to data you turn over to 3rd parties, like financial records to your bank, whereas Article 8 does.
[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/51921...
Both known as "the bogeyman" in the UK and being used as an argument as to why we should leave the EU, by both politicians and press, which many appear to have already bought.
The mind boggles.
The mind boggles.
The ECHR was used to decriminalised homosexuality in the UK. What a bogeyman!
Great! Let's eliminate crime !!
Good. It's now time to explore the market for people who want to quit/detox from the weed.
I'm not saying this in a sarcastic way - I've been smoking on and off for 20 years and I have great respect for the plant.
But it has this "self-limiting" property - sometimes you want to be with it, sometimes you want to take a break.
And taking a break is not trivial for some people.
This is were the secondary market can take form - helping people take a break/detox from marijuana.
This can take the form of books, websites, applications, seminars, drugs, whatever.
I'm not saying this in a sarcastic way - I've been smoking on and off for 20 years and I have great respect for the plant.
But it has this "self-limiting" property - sometimes you want to be with it, sometimes you want to take a break.
And taking a break is not trivial for some people.
This is were the secondary market can take form - helping people take a break/detox from marijuana.
This can take the form of books, websites, applications, seminars, drugs, whatever.
Have you tried a high CBD/low THC strain?
When I found it was limiting me, I moved over to a strain of this type and it still satisfied my urge to smoke something tasty, but also did not hold me back from doing anything, as it these strains do not get you 'stoned' in the normal sense. In hindsight, my addiction was that I related the act smoking to sitting back and being lazy, so once I removed that link I no longer felt the urge to smoke and I rarely smoke anything these days.
I recently read a book called 'The Power of Habit' which offers amazing insight and ways to help you overcome any addictions and in a much more efficient way...I highly recommend it!
Yeah basically just sort yourself some Sativa instead of Indica. It's almost like a whole new drug. I much prefer it, plus sex on it is utterly amazing.
No, the opposite. High CBD, low THC. IMO, it doesn't harm your ability to focus the way high THC cannabis does.
[deleted]
Sativa is still usually high in THC, it just has a different high. However, I still found even Sativa strains would give me 'couchlock' most of the time! It is the third strain 'Ruderalis' that has a high CBD content and low THC.
If you are lucky enough to be able to grow, i'd advise trying a strain by the 'CBD Crew' who specialise in these high CBD strains. Med-Gom was the strain I tried so I can certainly recommend that one :)
Generic classes/treatments/therapy on addiction already exist. Marijuana has not been proven to be physically addictive like alcohol & heroin. Psychological addiction can happen with anything, so that is why I mention generic addiction treatment.
I think your point is valid though. We can always learn more, especially if it can help.
I think your point is valid though. We can always learn more, especially if it can help.
I so dislike the word "addiction" because it puts every type of cyclical behavior in one bucket.
Even worse is the word "addict", which is dirty and degrading and helpless.
Just like the word "drugs" or "criminal". There are so many shades to it that one word just doesn't cut it.
The word we use to state the issue gives us the frame of where to look for solutions, hence a bad statement can lead to bad solutions.
For example, instead of "addiction to marijuana" try using the expression "relationship with the marijuana plant".
This subtile change in statement shifts the domain of the issue and lets us look for a solution in new places. Now we're dealing with a relationship (with a plant) - might it be a replacement for a relationship with a human (current or previous) ? Who is it replacing in my life ?
And so on, you get the point ...
Reframing my "addiction to tobacco" to "relationship with the tobacco plant" has helped me quit smoking for good, because I was not thinking of it as a mechanistic dependency on a substance (nicotine), but as a case of relationship with a plant.
She was my closest friend, my protector, my thinking partner, but she was taking a toll on my health, hence we had to part ways. Peacefully and respectfully, we separated and I've been free ever since.
The point I'm trying to make is that we're still far from a clear understanding of what "addiction" is and how to approach it at the root and that's were green pastures for research and businesses exist.
Even worse is the word "addict", which is dirty and degrading and helpless.
Just like the word "drugs" or "criminal". There are so many shades to it that one word just doesn't cut it.
The word we use to state the issue gives us the frame of where to look for solutions, hence a bad statement can lead to bad solutions.
For example, instead of "addiction to marijuana" try using the expression "relationship with the marijuana plant".
This subtile change in statement shifts the domain of the issue and lets us look for a solution in new places. Now we're dealing with a relationship (with a plant) - might it be a replacement for a relationship with a human (current or previous) ? Who is it replacing in my life ?
And so on, you get the point ...
Reframing my "addiction to tobacco" to "relationship with the tobacco plant" has helped me quit smoking for good, because I was not thinking of it as a mechanistic dependency on a substance (nicotine), but as a case of relationship with a plant.
She was my closest friend, my protector, my thinking partner, but she was taking a toll on my health, hence we had to part ways. Peacefully and respectfully, we separated and I've been free ever since.
The point I'm trying to make is that we're still far from a clear understanding of what "addiction" is and how to approach it at the root and that's were green pastures for research and businesses exist.
I usually hear the term "addiction" used more for the physical cases such as alcohol or narcotics, and "dependency" more in the psychological sense.
As someone who has been through many treatments, meetings, clinics, etc, regarding addiction, you are focusing on the wrong thing. Who cares what it is called... go get help first, any help, then worry about arguing about semantics later.
To qualify as addition it must not be only habitual but also harmful.
citation?
The dictionary, for starters. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction
If you replace a word with another fairly quickly the positive and negative connotations follow it. Ex: African Americans and Black are much closer together than they used to be.
Culture is an interesting issue. At uni everyone smoked, which annoyed me because I got headaches from it. Decades later grown up in the burbs, the idea that I'd pound on a random neighbors door and smoke up is simply absurd.
For at least some addicts, they need a complete cultural transplanting, age change, or even social class change.
For an analogy think of alcohol pretty much owning 22 year olds at college bars as a cultural issue... short of going hermit mode or being really poor (that was me) or moving to a different non-western culture, there's no avoiding it, which is rough on people with susceptibility to alcohol addiction. Send them to rehab all you want, but until you remove them from the culture they're just gonna drink again.
For at least some addicts, they need a complete cultural transplanting, age change, or even social class change.
For an analogy think of alcohol pretty much owning 22 year olds at college bars as a cultural issue... short of going hermit mode or being really poor (that was me) or moving to a different non-western culture, there's no avoiding it, which is rough on people with susceptibility to alcohol addiction. Send them to rehab all you want, but until you remove them from the culture they're just gonna drink again.
>Decades later grown up in the burbs, the idea that I'd pound on a random neighbors door and smoke up is simply absurd.
Im sorry to hear that
Im sorry to hear that
I've never been sure what the difference between physical and psychological addiction is supposed to mean anyway. What we call psychology is a complex of physiological processes. What matters is that marijuana accounts for 17% of rehab admission, more than any other drug with the exception of alcohol. Cute sophistries that we're also addicted to coffee or air will not change the fact that this "psychological" marijuana addiction is a serious threat to quality of life.
Judge asks "jail or rehab?"
"Jail, your honor", said no one ever.
>Rehab stats for weed have nothing to do with addiction. Primary marijuana admissions were less likely than all admissions combined to be self- or individually referred to treatment (18 vs. 37 percent). Primary marijuana admissions were most likely to be referred by a criminal justice source (52 percent) [Table 2.6].
page 21
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2003_2013_TED...
"Jail, your honor", said no one ever.
>Rehab stats for weed have nothing to do with addiction. Primary marijuana admissions were less likely than all admissions combined to be self- or individually referred to treatment (18 vs. 37 percent). Primary marijuana admissions were most likely to be referred by a criminal justice source (52 percent) [Table 2.6].
page 21
http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/2003_2013_TED...
Anecdotal, but I do know one person who chose jail when given the choice between successfully completing rehab and staying clean for a year, or 90 days in jail immediately. She knew that rehab probably wouldn't work and she'd end up in jail anyway (with a longer sentence) so she just got it over with.
The difference between physical and psychological addiction is that things that cause physical addiction are actually addictive themselves — that is, using them tends to create dependency as a matter of course — whereas psychological addiction depends on the user's state of mind, and people without that state of mind can use them safely. You can be psychologically addicted to virtually anything.
When people point out that marijuana isn't physically addictive, the point isn't that people's psychological addictions aren't serious. The point is that they don't appear to reflect a danger posed by marijuana.
When people point out that marijuana isn't physically addictive, the point isn't that people's psychological addictions aren't serious. The point is that they don't appear to reflect a danger posed by marijuana.
There are definitely physical dependencies that develop with THC, perhaps not "addiction" but the body does get used to it to the point that withdrawal is a real and physical problem if you've been using it a lot and at strong doses.
That's not what physical dependence is.
Note that cannabis is not listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence#Drugs_that...
Note that cannabis is not listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence#Drugs_that...
I'm not so sure if we can actually draw lines between physical and psychological since brain can control your needs and wants. People can get addicted to anything and withdrawals suck.
There are some things are genuinely physical. Here is an example: Marijuana is known to constrict the vessels of the brain. Over the long term, the brain compensates for this to return the vessels to a normal state. When you suddenly stop smoking cannabis routinely, the vessels expand because the THC is not maintaining their restriction. Expanded vessels in the brain are a common suspected cause of migraines, and severe headaches are a top reported symptom of cannabis withdrawal. Interestingly, this effect of cannabis on the brain's vascular system also makes it a highly-researched drug for migraine treatment. It would be like taking migraine medication every day for a long time, then suddenly stopping and getting a flood of headaches as the brain re-adjusts.
Now, I don't think this is "psychological."
Now, I don't think this is "psychological."
[deleted]
Very good point. I've been a one-hit-wonder for years (1-3 hits and I'm done for the night) but I suffer with the whole laziness/limiting/apathy for at least a day afterwards. I hope this spawns a better market in creating strains that give you all the fun, but none of the laziness, and psychological dependency. I use it for depression and anxiety, and I know I'm addicted, but I also know it's entirely my fault.
Also: Being able to explore ways to discuss, diagnose, and ween myself off of the dependency of weed, while being open and free to discuss why it helps me in the first place, without stigma, would really help in my situation.
Also: Being able to explore ways to discuss, diagnose, and ween myself off of the dependency of weed, while being open and free to discuss why it helps me in the first place, without stigma, would really help in my situation.
Hydrate the day after, and your life will be completely different.
There seems to be this reverse-stigma attached to marijuana that causes many to think there is no such thing as weed withdrawal or dependence, and some laugh at the mere notion of this. Hopefully as the drug is more widely used recreationally and legally, this notion will change and most people will be more aware of these things. It is a remarkable plant but it is certainly not all positive and it can be dangerously abused like any other vice or medication, with real problematic side-effects.
I think many people are aware of these risks, but the marijuana community is hesitant to concede them openly because of how overblown the risks have been portrayed in the past. I think you're right that this will change once the drug is more widely used, but more so when the community feels comfortable enough to relax the defensive posture that is primarily concerned with encouraging a mindset that favors legalization.
The community loves to tout all the medicinal virtues of the drug -- and those are legit -- but they often have a stance that these somehow trump any other reality associated with putting a strong chemical into your body on a regular basis.
I've read some studies recently that show that habitual marijuana users are at heightened risks for stroke and that THC does in fact cause accelerated brain cell death (and so does alcohol). Hopefully responsible users will understand that many things can be really great if only in moderation.
I've read some studies recently that show that habitual marijuana users are at heightened risks for stroke and that THC does in fact cause accelerated brain cell death (and so does alcohol). Hopefully responsible users will understand that many things can be really great if only in moderation.
> sometimes you want to be with it, sometimes you want to take a break.
So true. I'm at that point now, but finding it really hard to quit when I can just walk down the street to a store and buy it...
So true. I'm at that point now, but finding it really hard to quit when I can just walk down the street to a store and buy it...
/r/leaves
Wondering how big this is compare to Netherlands :)
Marijuana has been legal there for long time.
It's an extremely common misconception, but it isn't legal in the NL. It is tolerated through an official policy called "gedoogbeleid" in which it is effectively legal for people over 18 to buy up to 5 grams at a time in a coffeeshop. It's that famous Dutch tolerance.
However, there are some key differences with the situation in the US. In the Netherlands, the supply to the coffeeshops is still very much illegal; it's a "mystery" how the shops are supplied, but they've got the product (max 500g at any given time), and it's tolerated for them to sell it to the public. Supply however remains under the table. Enforcement is rigid, if they're over the 500g limit, selling to minors, or selling other hard drugs then they can be swiftly shut down.
The Dutch government at the highest levels is increasingly regressive; they've even begun to criminalize supporting the growing of cannabis, which is absurd when you see that innocent garden supply shops are now potentially liable. At the municipal level in the largely pro-cannabis cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Rotterdam), there have been plans to try regulated and tolerated growing. The national government however emphatically rejects these plans and prevents it from happening. Some councils (especially in the south near Belgium) have enacted resident-only restrictions, which has the not-unsurprising effect that nuisance street dealing picked up. The government tried to enact this nationwide, but many cities refused and there are usually no residence restrictions except for certain areas.
(Interesting fact: only 35% of visitors to Amsterdam visit a coffeeshop. It's a big, inaccurate stereotype that the Dutch are stoned all the time or that Amsterdam is all about weed. Americans smoke a lot more than the Dutch do, much to many visitors' surprise.)
However, there are some key differences with the situation in the US. In the Netherlands, the supply to the coffeeshops is still very much illegal; it's a "mystery" how the shops are supplied, but they've got the product (max 500g at any given time), and it's tolerated for them to sell it to the public. Supply however remains under the table. Enforcement is rigid, if they're over the 500g limit, selling to minors, or selling other hard drugs then they can be swiftly shut down.
The Dutch government at the highest levels is increasingly regressive; they've even begun to criminalize supporting the growing of cannabis, which is absurd when you see that innocent garden supply shops are now potentially liable. At the municipal level in the largely pro-cannabis cities (e.g. Amsterdam, Rotterdam), there have been plans to try regulated and tolerated growing. The national government however emphatically rejects these plans and prevents it from happening. Some councils (especially in the south near Belgium) have enacted resident-only restrictions, which has the not-unsurprising effect that nuisance street dealing picked up. The government tried to enact this nationwide, but many cities refused and there are usually no residence restrictions except for certain areas.
(Interesting fact: only 35% of visitors to Amsterdam visit a coffeeshop. It's a big, inaccurate stereotype that the Dutch are stoned all the time or that Amsterdam is all about weed. Americans smoke a lot more than the Dutch do, much to many visitors' surprise.)
IIRC, marijuana is not legal in the Netherlands, but is 'tolerated'.
Oh, you are right! I didn't know!
http://europe.newsweek.com/marijuana-and-old-amsterdam-30821...
http://europe.newsweek.com/marijuana-and-old-amsterdam-30821...
Has anyone figured out how one could get exposure to this in the stock market? Any other way to legally invest in this boom?
If you're an accredited investor in the US, you could consider investing in a number of cannabis-focused hedge funds, private equity funds, and venture capital funds that have sprung up recently.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2015/05/19/cannab...
http://poseidonassetmanagement.com/
http://www.privateerholdings.com/about/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2015/05/19/cannab...
http://poseidonassetmanagement.com/
http://www.privateerholdings.com/about/
At the moment these businesses in the USA can't even use the banks. There are some large growers in Canada that are listed on the TSX. Aphria Inc., Mettrum Health Corp., Canopy Growth Corp., which owns two of Canada’s biggest licensed marijuana producers, Tweed and Bedrocan.
It seems growers who supply the retail outlets will be the way to go.
It seems growers who supply the retail outlets will be the way to go.
Most of the growth pre-legalization at a federal level won't be at these companies though, right? There's no way these guys can be supplying the markets in WA/OR/CO/AK because they'd need to transport a lot of product over national borders and would have to deal with federal border agents. Right?
I am seeking small initial investment to scale from 1 to 16x its size current to-be licensed growers/producers operation. Please contact me.
Unfortunately I will assume the derivatives that are already taking advantage will make it an average bet at best.
This has become a cash cow for state governments and I don't see this ending well for anybody wanting to use legally. The government track record on stuff like this is absolutely miserable.