Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Move to Legalize Marijuana in California Sparks Fears About Drop in Prices
A proposal to put the legalization of marijuana in California to a vote this November is causing some growers of the plant in the state to worry about a sharp drop in the value of their crop if the measure succeeds.
Medical marijuana is displayed in Los Angeles in this August 6, 2007 file photo.
(REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni/Files) As The Los Angeles Times explained in January, when supporters of the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 turned in more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, the initiative “would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use. It would also allow cities and counties to permit marijuana to be grown and sold, and to impose taxes on marijuana production and sales.”
On Monday, The Times-Sentinel newspaper in Humboldt County, a part of Northern California known as the “Emerald Triangle” for the density of its marijuana crop, reported:
[L]ocal business people, officials and those involved in the marijuana industry are planning to meet Tuesday night and break a long-standing silence to talk about what supposedly is the backbone of Humboldt County’s economy — pot. More specifically, the meeting will focus on the potential economic effects of the legalization of marijuana.
While the local newspaper’s report on the meeting quoted the its organizer, Anna Hamilton, by name, it did not state that she was, herself, a grower of the plant — which is legal in the state only when used as medication. According to The Times-Sentinel, Ms. Hamilton “said she is ‘intimately involved’ with the marijuana industry.” That sort of coyness led Frank James to write on NPR’s news blog:
Marijuana growers tend to be a fairly secretive lot, probably even in Humboldt, so I wonder what the attendance will be like and if the Drug Enforcement Agency will be there.
Ms. Hamilton told the local newspaper that if the county’s marijuana industry prepares for legalization, there could be some positives for the area: “We have to embrace marijuana tourism, marijuana products and services — and marijuana has to become a part of the Humboldt County brand,” she said.
The ballot initiative, which is being presented in part as a way to raise tax revenues for California, is supported by Richard Lee, an Oakland businessman who makes his money selling the drug legally. Mr. Lee also founded Oaksterdam University, which trains growers.
A campaign Web site, Taxcannabis.org, prominently features the results of a 2009 Field poll that found that “legalizing marijuana and taxing its proceeds” was supported by 56 percent of those surveyed in California.
The same Web site noted that three columnists for The Orange Country Register recently included the legalization and taxation of marijuana production in a list of ideas to help California balance its books — along with calls to privatize the state’s prisons, suspend the fight against global warming and drill for oil in the waters near the state’s beaches.
- Posted in
119 Comments so far
Show Allof course...
marijuana is wonderful, and grows everywhere, for free...
the 'free' part is, and has always been, the 'bad' part...
not mention the thousands of 'other' uses...
even proponents don't want to lose their right to profit off of others, so would control access...this is criminal...
the history behind this farce is well documented...how sad to see the hypocrisy among the user community, as well...
I dream of the day no one has the right to take my pot away...
Hummmm. I was always under the impression that in order to comply with California's Medical Marijuana Law, the growth and sale of the drug for medicinal purposes had to be *NON-PROFIT*.
Now don't get me wrong, I am for legalization and regulation of *ALL* drugs, not merely cannabis. But, if these current growers are making a living by growing and selling cannabis, are they following the current state law? Just curious.
Of course, the dropping of prices is exactly what will kill the existing black markets (and the violence caused by prohibition...not drug use or users.) If Cal. actually does legalize weed for recreational purposes as well as medicinal, of course prices will drop. But we learned that way back yonder in the 1930's...didn't we?
Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes. Well duh!!!
Non-profit organizations can generate income to cover the expense of the operation for things like rent, utilities, and wages. (as far as I'm aware)
An odd echo from history, as marijuana growers are having some of the same conversations that liquor bootleggers had in 1931.
And just like those bootleggers, the big names in pot growing will soon start using that money to influence the political system to allow them to keep their high-priced monopoly on cannabis. Just like Seagram's, soon we'll have to buy some brand named cannabis instead of growing our own. Trust me, if 'weed' ever becomes legal, it won't be for us to grow but for someone else to make money on. I don't understand these silly potheads who keep screaming "Legalize and tax it!". Leave my pot the hell alone!
Your position appears overly defensive. Which part of 'the initiative “would make it legal for anyone 21 and older to possess an ounce of marijuana and grow plants in an area no larger than 25 square feet for personal use' isn't clear?
And regarding your statement 'if 'weed' ever becomes legal, it won't be for us to grow but for someone else to make money on' I have to ask you, is someone making money selling you 'weed' now? And can you make your own alcohol? You couldn't DURING prohibition.
Overly defensive? Really? So, the completely arbitrary amounts of one ounce and 25 sq. ft, isn't them dictating how much cannabis I can have? Stating that it's legal only for 'personal use' isn't regulating how I distribute my cannabis? Do you really believe that this isn't so larger growers of pot (who will be licensed and taxed, of course) won't be able to preserve some aspect of the current high (no pun intended) cost of cannabis? Use your noodle just a bit before you reply.
By the way, my whole point about Seagram's and other former bootleggers is that the law says that you CANNOT legally distill your own alcohol and THIS is why they have a monopoly on it. Mark my words, the same thing will happen to 'legal' cannabis. When you're paying $20/pack + tax for Marlboro Deep Greens, you'll finally get it.
I actually do not indulge in cannabis, although I'm a lover of the plant. I haven't in quite some time, more's the pity. In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm an anarchist. Using cannabis has killed no one nor does it hurt most people. No one has the right to tell me how much I can grow, use or distribute, no matter how much force and coercion they use to make me comply.
Why aren't you potheads fighting to get the state out of the weed 'bidness'? If cannabis growing, processing and distribution was not a legal issue at all, pounds of cannabis would be cheaper than pounds of rice. Instead, it's going to be used as another tool to fund a bankrupt and corrupt state government and make a few people rich. What a horrible outcome from such a beautiful plant.
edit: While you can distill your own alcohol here in the U.S., you have to poison it so that it cannot be used as drinking alcohol.
"Why aren't you potheads fighting to get the state out of the weed 'bidness'?"
The state will NOT get out of the business. Full stop.
You think not? The state would have no choice but to drop the issue if we grew, used and distributed cannabis, regardless of whatever laws they passed or whatever repressions they commit. The drug war is untenable and always has been. The fact that individual states are even able to have this conversation says much about just how loose the grip of the Alphabet Soup agencies have on this beloved plant. Just stand up and refuse to respect these laws. Étienne de La Boétie gave us the tools. Pick them up and use them.
The State/ gov, or rather those who control it and who profit from having marijuana criminalised, doesn't give a flying rat's ass whether the drug war is untenable. The drug war might have always been untenable, that hasn't prevented States all over the world from trying to wage it. They stop waging it only if there is profit from not waging it, or there is overwhelming support against waging it.
California has this conversation because there is very strong support among Californians for decriminalisation.
It is a chicken and egg thing. The State would have no choice to but to drop the issue if there is overwhelming support among the populace for the State to drop the issue. But then, if there is overwhelming support for the State to drop the issue, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Common Dreams is not representative of the populace.
Common Dreams is not representative of the populace.
-------------------------------
I'm not so sure. My sense is that most people are more like what we say we are, and less like what we are ...if that makes any sense.
Any number of people smoke dope without talking about it --they're in it for the dope, so to speak, not the cachet of being a rebel. They're the same people who make their 200gals of wine every year...and quietly distill a bit to enjoy as brandy, even tho that's still (npi) illegal. They don't talk about it, they just do it.
"even tho that's still (npi) illegal."
grown!
Black_Anarch. If you don't use it then you have no fear of getting busted and having your life ruined.
The Drug War keeps the violent criminals in business.
You don't think I fear a bust? I'm vulnerable from things other than drugs. Believe me, I've seen enough bars and cages to last a lifetime.
That said, it's time to simply stand up and make them poop or get off the pot, as my mom would say. Either make it to where there are no drugs (other than the big PhRMA drug racket's drugs) available and use all the repressive power necessary or let us be. Sometimes, it's time for a showdown.
And sometimes, it's time for reconciliation.
I would say that THIS time seems more right for a reconciliation than a showdown over cannabis.
This Initiative makes psychoactive cannabis a part of normal, legal, society again (in California). But because it is a drug, not a vegetable, the Initiative provides for slightly different laws regulating its production and sale than it does for vegetables.
And make no mistake, the State of California does regulate the production and sale of vegetables.
This Initiative also allows you to grow and consume your own psychoactive cannabis, just like you would your own vegetables, but for obvious reason limits the plot of land you can use to do so.
Now, if you would like to see showdown over Imperialism or Corporatocracy, then I'd be with you.
-matti.
You don't make any sense.
But, You like to talk big and try to talk others into trouble.
I agree with you that the amounts in question are seemingly completely arbitrary. But how much pot can you legally grow for yourself right now? In my opinion, this is a 'first baby step'. A decent portion of our modern society is still living with the 'Reefer Madness' mentality and when the world fails to come crashing down around them they'll slowly begin to see the emperor wheres no clothes. (I use my 'noodle' constantly and I enjoy learning more about alternate opinions and what beliefs are at the base of those opinions.)
No, you can't distill your own pure alcohol but you CAN make your own wine, beer, and liqueurs. That's legal. But you are correct about the pure alcohol.
I've told many ppl, many times, that I'd LOVE to pay high price and taxes for a pack of cannabis if I could be free from the possibility of arrest. $20/pack + tax buys you the convenience of not having to sneak around and the threat of arrest AND, best of all, regular/expected supply.
Most of us here probably want the same end goal. But you should realize that not everyone is going to agree with us. Baby steps.
I disagree. One of the reasons hemp has continued to be illegal for so long is the fact that it is easier to produce then alcohol. Almost anyone in any environment could grow enough for their own use and thus avoid taxation. Spirits must undergo a series of more complex chemical steps that lends itself to a regular production facility that can be more readily monitored and taxed.
Hemp is a living growing plant that does most of the work itself with only occasional attention from outside (grower). Plant, the seed, play some music and sit back an wait for the rewards.
P.S. I would like to say that although I consider cannabis much less dangerous then alcohol having used both, I do not think it is a harmless drug. Having not used these substances for some 35 years now I must attest to the natural high of pure vegetarian food, pure water, pure air and the healthful bounty of the human body when in harmony with nature.
Aloha
Seagrams is made in Canada...which never became involved in our religion driven prohibition. Actually, Seagrams was a big supplier to bootleggers during Prohibition.
Yeah, pretty sure there's going to be financial interests that make this more of a problem than it should be. And not just growers, but a whole law enforcement and prison system that has been raking it in keeping this harmless plant illegal. Same as it ever was.
There is no doubt that the growers are concerned about price drop. This has already happened, to some degree, due to the medical and decrim efforts.
The end result of legalization, so long as individuals can experiment with techniques and strains and so on, will be a market where good weed is dirt cheap, great weed is cheap, and only specialty "vintages" will command anything close to today's prices.
IMHO.
Cheers.
I was about to point out the same thing Nate...
The biggest PROponents of prohibition were the bootleggers.
The profits from bootlegging were HUGE so they joined with churches, etc to push the draconian prohibition law.
Just as today we see the growers supporting control, not legalization. Hell, if pot was legal, no one would buy it!
"if pot was legal, no one would buy it!"
I beg to differ. Not the case in Amsterdam where Cannabis Coffee Houses abound.
Just ask my good friend John Sinclair (google him)who in the US received a sentence of 9.5 to 10 years for possession of two joints. He now lives in Amsterdam and makes a living selling Cannabis at one of those establishments.
Exactly my point... pot is not "legal" in Holland either... It's regulated, thus people have to buy it in "Coffee Houses" unless they choose to violate the law.
I repeat... If pot was LEGAL no one would buy it.
Bob, I am confused, you proved - Why - people will Always buy it. They will go wherever they have to. I'll bet those coffee houses are full and busy and making lots of money.
They used to be, but since the tobacco ban in public establishments, the coffee shops have become merely supply depots.
The absurd situation was that you could get busted by the cops if you had tobacco in your joint.
it is, however, legal to grow "wiet" in Holland.
but, technically, not to harvest it.
Of course they would buy it, only very Cheap.
Some good quality some not... So many kinds of Pot and this would also help get Hemp used in industry to create jobs.
So many things can be made from hemp for jobs and the environment.
Food is legal, water is legal, and people buy it.
Legal or decriminalized, both are better than the status quo of state terror over this beautiful plant.
Any time you move things, a few rats are bound to come out of the woodwork.
I look forward to state-sponsored maps of Herb Country with highlighted Spots to See and designer-decor nostalgia competing for gestures of authenticity.
It's going to take a chip out of the Zoloft market, too, if we get this passed. Viva!
Sad that NYTimes reporting is so bad they can't even get the name of the independent newspaper they cite correct. The paper is the Times-Standard, not the Times-Sentinel.
Uh, the price of a medicine (for some people) dropping is a bad thing now, after everyone in California whined about an insurance company jacking up their premiums 39%? Make up your minds.
Z, pardon the contradictions, but sometimes different folks out here hold different opinions.
Growers need to get over the change. You can't have it both ways. If you are growing it for Patients, sick people, as a lot, tend to have less money, in general. It is time to face up to this and admit that officiallysick people are not the only people that benefit from the qualities of marijuana, they are only a fraction of the consumers in this Country. Many people benefit because - green - is a rare commodity for many people in this concreteworld and it has a quality of helping people to connect with and care about nature. It is soothing and makes bad thoughts go away, at least for a little while, and that is a good and rare thing these days. I could go on and on, but I will stop here.
Peace.
Mark my word - the days of growing cannabis to toke are numbered.
Have ya heard of K2? No?
http://tinyurl.com/yj4bgy7
Now, I know - connoisseurs scoff at it, (I was one,) but I'm telling you here and now some of the blends are great, and the evolution is just beginning.
You can already buy it at C-stores and CVSs, and soon it'll be so cheap, and so powerful, no White Widow grower will ever be able to compete.
Just watch...
Synthetic Cannabinoids...herbal blends...what?! So, let me get this straight. You'd rather have some smoke developed in a lab than to smoke the beautiful cured and dried flowers of a mother plant that you raised from a seed? I'm speechless. Different smokes for different folks, I guess.
Not saying I'd rather anything.
I'm saying it works great. Tastes great. Absolutely no side effects whatsoever, contrary to the propaganda. Just because natural cannabinoids can be created in a lab they're bad by default? Is that the problem?
So that synthetic hamburger taste all Fast Food joints spray on their crap? How about ALL processed food, where the taste has to be 'restored' after processing? Avoiding all of that for the 'real' thing are we?
We're not talking bathtub meth or rat-poison crack here. Straight, easy science Big Pharma is already using in dozens of LEGAL drugs.
Huey Lewis' dream has finally come true...
"..it may cause negative effects that are not noted in marijuana users, such as increased agitation and vomiting, among other things."
Um, Frank, based on what I read, I don't think K2 will put an end to Cannabis.
Go back to listening to, Video Killed the Radio Star.
Decriminalization is a good goal. How many families and wasted lives because of the WOD? More plants is more healthy. What is wrong with having faith in the quality based on having a name associated with the supply? Growers in Oakland are trying to establish this kind of quality control - which is a good thing. It protects people. We have come a long way baby ..from Paraquat in our Pot.
There's a rather large problem with the 25 square feet and only one ounce as that square footage will generate far more than one ounce. And then there's the taxation issue which as Black_Anarch notes brings the heavy hand of the state into play where it's not wanted. If I still lived in California, I'd probably vote against this initiative. Furthermore, the DEA is working with GMO seed companies to help them create more potent, patentable, strains so they can control what is being viewed as an emerging profit maker. It's too bad that marijuana won't be treated like peas, for example--I don't need a license to grow peas; whatever amount I grow won't be taxed unless I sell a portion of my harvest; and there is no limit to the amount I can grow.
Thank you, brother. Hell, with a black thumb and 1-2 Skunk #1 plants, I can grow more than an ounce and that wouldn't take but about 2 sq. ft. if that. See, that's the problem with these bullshit, arbitrary laws. The people making the law, probably have never even seen a live cannabis mother plant, let alone know how to grow one. In a 25 sq. ft. grow, using a sea-of-green method, I could easily grow and harvest a few pounds of weed in less than 70 days, if I used quality clones from a strong mother.
If you love your freedom and you support your right to indulge in a nearly harmless, mostly beneficial plant like cannabis, stop trying to get the state to 'legalize' it. Force them to take it off the books as a criminal act to grow, use or distribute any amount of cannabis and I guarantee you, it'll flow like water, be as potent as sunshine and be cheaper than gov't subsidized corn.
*edited for readability.*
You two really should READ the initiative.
The full text is at taxcannabis.org.
The 1oz rule is for transportation, not storage.
If you can grow a pound in your 25 sq ft allotment, and you are just looking to share it out amongst your friends, no problem, just have them come over, and give them no more than an once to take home with them. You got a house full of people to get your cannabis to? Just have more than one person do the transporting! They can move an oz EACH.
A totally legal plot of cannabis in my greenhouse, or my friends' greenhouses, which we can harvest and share between us freely as long as we don't move more than an oz per person at a time. That's what this Initiative will get Californians when it becomes Law. Or, if we live in a City or County that decides to allow it, me and my friends can go to a shop that has obtained a permit from said local government, buy some name brand, assured quality, commercially-grown (with permit) cannabis, perhaps even prepped for easy smoking (pre-rolled), and make a little contribution of our own to State and Local Revenue in the process. Just like we can and do now with tobacco.
We just won't be able to "legally" smoke it in public.
But with cannabis legal in just a few California localities and illegal everywhere else in the country, I doubt very much if local police will be attempting to harrass non-offensive smokers.
Two other things:
The Initiative provides for a affirmative defense if the cops and the prosecutor try to bust you with the stuff. Which means THEY would have to prove that it WASN'T for personal consumption, as opposed to YOU having to prove that it WAS.
And the Initiative leaves room to be Amended by the Legislature to raise the limits on "personal comsuption" transport and growing amounts.
-matti.
Hi matti--Up here in Oregon, we have our own initiative, http://www.cannabistaxact.org/content/ballot-title
" "Yes" vote permits state-licensed marijuana (cannabis) cultivation/sale to adults through state stores; permits unlicensed adult personal cultivation/use; prohibits restrictions on hemp (defined)."
I'd say that's much more reasonable than what is happening down south.
The California Initiative has the same cultivation/sale provision, but mandates local permitting, while only leaving for Amendment State regulations.
The California Initiative also provides for unlicensed personal cultivation/use.
The California Initiative does fall short on hemp. But it does provide for Amendment regarding hemp. As I've written elsewhere, hemp is on the verge already at the Congressional level, so while State Laws pro-hemp are fantastic, the omission of hemp in this Initiative is not a real downside. Psychoactive cannabis is NOT on the verge in Congress, so any Initiatives or Bills at the State level that push its legalization are good with me.
I'm in Washington, myself, and I'm for the Initiatives in California, Oregon, and my own State. They're all different, and Washington's is the least bold, but they would all break the back of phrohibition in their respective States, and I'm all for that.
I'd rather see well written and legally sound, but substantially different because of the details of each State's Laws and Constitution, pass this year, than see the boldest and most similar Initiatives fail because they did not account for State Law properly.
Read California's Initiative at:
http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/
And Washington's at:
http://cdc.coop/sensible_washington
-matti.
I beg to differ.
I grew plants in a small closet.
25 sq feet is 5x5, about the space I had
A plant usually requires a 5 gal pickle bucket and a good light.
You can grow about 5 plants comfortably in a 5x5 space.
From seed to buds was about 5 months - I'd cheat by drying old leaves in a toaster oven.
I grew enough to take care of myself, then. I rarely had enough to give to other people.
I use it medicinally now - an oz of good $500/oz weed lasts a month.
You'll never grow one ounce of high quality dried marijuana/month in a indoor space of 25 sq feet without a lot of effort.
New growing techniques have evolved in the past few years. The sea of green technique that is now widely being used to grow can fit about 1 plant per square foot. By using hydro growing methods (which use 2 gallon buckets), increasing the light cycle in the veg stage, decreasing the time in veg stage (down to 1 month) and having a separate room and light cycles for the flower stage (which lasts 3 months) will decrease the total grow time down to 4 months. Using this 2 room/2 light set up (which is possible in a 25 square foot set up) it allows the grower to continually produce a harvest at whichever frequency they choose. Since the flower stage only requires 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness, the grower can have plants in different stages in the flower room. For ex: They can put 3 new plants from the veg stage into the flower stage every month. This would mean that, each month, they could have 3 plants that are ready to harvest, 3 plants that are 1 month away from harvest, 3 plants that are 2 months away from harvest, and the new 3 plants that are just entering the first day of the flower stage... with some effort, of course, but easily done. With each plant averaging 2 ounces per harvest you get... well, you can do the math.
Sorry, but an ex-girlfriend does grow quite a lot from her small space, all legally too, except that she sells her excess for $300/oz, which she can only provide to state certified patients or their licensed provider, not the general public. Using hydroponics and premium lighting equipment combined with a longtime grower's expertise, she produces about ten pounds per year from 25 square feet from 5 crops. The capital outlay was about $1,000 with about $1,500 annual expenses that nets her a nice supplementary income.
While I am fully in favor of decriminalizing pot, this law is seems worded to just barely legalize it. What concerns me is that it completely fails to free up hemp for commercial uses (which is of course exactly what industry wants). This law appears to only address canabis as a drug, when it's true value to society lies in being a sustainable alernative to a variety of current wasteful industries.
I was watching "American Loggers" on the Discovery Channel a couple days ago, trying to stop myself from screaming at the TV. They were clear-cutting immature trees for paper production, and when they were done, their "forester" quipped that the stand would be ready for another harvest in about 30 years. That's madness. Hemp paper is higher quality, easier to process, easier on the soils, and has an immensely higher yield per acre over time. And that's just one example among thousands.
It sounds to me like, once again, we are letting the oppressors frame the debate.
speaking of oppressors - does anyone know where Anslinger is buried?
now wouldn't his grave make the perfect pot plot?
he'd be rolling in it!
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger "Anslinger is buried in Hollidaysburg Presbyterian Cemetery, Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania, USA Plot: Sec. C, Lot 320."
would that be near the High Street end or the S Scotch Valley Road end?