Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#101

Post by dragonwriter »

verbify wrote: post #75
dgzl wrote: post #73

> Retailers and growers say they’ve been stunted by complex regulations, high taxes I can't say I'm surprised. As someone who grew up on the Oregon border of California on i5, locals here complain about California's influence on the local economy and politics. (E.g. buying expensive land, driving taxes up) However in Oregon, I believe our problem is with oversaturation of the market. From what I understand (not rehea…

> it's not unheard of for places to sell quality marijuana for as low as $48/ounce, which is very cheap When I look at other dried herbs on amazon, they're much cheaper. E.g. thyme is about $10 for 12 ounces, oregano is $13 for 5 ounces. Weed obviously has higher taxes, more regulation and I presume a smaller market (most people consume culinary herbs as part of their diet, not everybody consumes weed). But I'd expec…

> But I'd expect the price to come down once the regulations disappear

Prohibition might disappear, but I doubt when marijuana is treated as a legal psychoactive drug it will be unregulated, or even merely regulated the way culinary herbs are.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#102

Post by int_19h »

ceejayoz wrote: post #40
0x4d464d48 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.

There'd be no legal basis for that. Federal drug law trumps state ones if there's a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

Federal laws can't be arbitrary, though - they need to fall under one of the enumerated federal powers.

Problem is, ever since Wickard v. Filburn decision, all that the federal government needs to do is to add "... in interstate commerce" in the text of the law, and it is magically constitutional. The words themselves have practically no meaning - in Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing food for personal consumption is still "participating in interstate commerce", on the basis that they'd have to buy that food otherwise, and therefore affect market prices on it.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#103

Post by akira2501 »

cbanek wrote: post #23

The other factor not talked about is that in general the prices seem to be going down due to a lot of supply (both on the retail/licensed market, and the grey/black market). About ten years ago, a really good pound (in bulk) could go for $3k-$4k to a dispensary. Now the high end seems to have fallen out and you're maybe lucky to get half of that. I think a lot of people ran their business plan numbers where they were…

> Now the high end seems to have fallen out and you're maybe lucky to get half of that.

Barely. I do lots of work with growers.. the sweet spot for a pound these days is $600 to $850, depending on quality. On top of that, transaction volumes are increasing too.. before you could make a deal on a handfull of pounds, now purchasers are interested in buying a "box" or a hundred pounds at a time.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#104

Post by int_19h »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #60

Honest question: Why do newspapers, NPR, etc. often refer to pot possession / sales as being legal in California and some other states, when they're clearly illegal under federal law? There are numerous other behaviors that IIUC are illegal under U.S. federal law but are not proscribed by California law, including: aircraft hijacking, carjacking, credit card fraud, and possession of destructive devices such as missil…

One of your examples is reversed.

It's not illegal to possess destructive devices on the federal level. There's a $200 NFA transfer tax to pay, but that aside, you can own a perfectly legal grenade launcher, or even a tank with an operational main gun. Some people do.

In CA, on the other hand, these things are explicitly prohibited (18710 PC).

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#105

Post by alexanderwept »

jaxn wrote: post #19
itslennysfault wrote: post #3

Probably because it's been "legal" in CA for years. The "medical" cannabis was a joke. There were people on the beaches holding signs "$50 medical cannabis card". Being legal recreationally didn't really make it any more accessible. Anyone that wanted a medical card could get one in a few minutes.

Except that you had to have a California drivers license. Marijuana tourism seems to be a big thing in CO.

Not true, I found an online doctor who offered California medical marijuana recommendations at $39/pop 'or your money back' - and I got one while passing through San Francisco for a conference. At the time I was a resident of another State and the doctor even shipped my official medical recommendation to my home state.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#106

Post by whiskyant »

bdhess wrote: post #94
Tsubasachan wrote: post #81

One of the most hilariously stupid arguments against legalisation of drugs is that it makes everyone into a junkie. Fact is most people don't do drugs, even if you can buy it in the supermarket.

I suppose you’re excluding alcohol from that pronouncement?

And caffeine

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#107

Post by barry-cotter »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #92
jcranmer wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work. The US has signed up to a treaty that requires us to treat marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. That requires an explicit act of Congress to abrogate, and no court is going to find otherwise.

Which treaty is that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...

This was the first result for both “drugs treaty” and “Narcotics treaty”.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#108

Post by ryanmercer »

Well, when you can't deposit your money into a bank without fear of it being seized by the federal government.

Can't take credit cards.

Can't take debit cards.

Can get loans from financial institutions to expand your business.

Have trouble finding landlords willing to lease to you because they don't want their doors breached by federal agents.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#109

Post by rcw4256 »

donarb wrote: post #79
newnewpdro wrote: post #28

My personal issue with how legal pot has played out is I have no interest in becoming a patron of these lifestyle shops for a variety of reasons. I also don't want my ID to be scanned for buying something still federally illegal. If I could occasionally buy marijuana products at the grocery store as part of my normal shopping, no different than my occasional purchase of whiskey or wine, then I would have at least bou…

In Washington you have to show ID to prove you’re over 21, but nothing is scanned.

The law doesn't require retailers to scan IDs, but many of them do, in my experience.

Re: One year into legal pot sales California doesn’t have expected bustling industry

#110

Post by titusjohnson »

greenleafjacob wrote: post #56
Nasrudith wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right it is an outlier and some would say not ideal. It is transparently a breakdown of rule of law into realpolitik given constraints and the redundant levels of powers - from what is fundamentally bad law and consistent failure to respond to facts on the ground. It brings to mind the old bit of legal philosophy about unenforceable laws breeding contempt for the law in general. The Federal government can tec…

While I don't disagree with much of what you said, your characterization of schedule 1 generally is factually incorrect. There is still testing of schedule 1 substances; as of 2017 there were more than 590 researchers registered to study schedule 1 substances. Both THC and CBD have been approved for medicinal uses (Marinol and Epidiolex respectively).

Please provide sources. Your statements go directly against common knowledge of what Schedule 1 is.
Post reply on HN