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

SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

thenationaldesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 247 posts

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#161

Post by SamBam »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #35
klyrs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something pot activists have complained about from the get-go. Legalization was sold to politicians with the promise of high taxes. We knew that poor users would be priced out of the market, that legal weed would be a privilege enjoyed by the rich, that dealers with criminal records would be shut out of the legal market.

> Legalization was sold to politicians with the promise of high taxes. We knew that poor users would be priced out of the market, that legal weed would be a privilege enjoyed by the rich Poor users seem to enjoy a lot of legal alcohol. Taxes on that are high too, and it's even easier to make your own alcohol than to make your own weed.

The majority of poor people have neither the time, space, know-how, or desire to make their own alcohol or weed.

But it's an awful lot easier for a dealer to sell weed to a hundred people than for them to sell bottles of alcohol to a hundred people.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#162

Post by beerandt »

katbyte wrote: post #74
darthrupert wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50% is worth the diminshed crime, and nobody should consume cannabis daily.

Nobody should really consume alcohol daily, yet a lot of people sure do.

And it's highly taxed and highly regulated, compared to most retail items.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#163

Post by sudosteph »

bryans wrote: post #65
mandmandam wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody should consume cannabis daily. Only a sith etc.. You do know there are low THC strains available? And that there are people who self medicate with cannabis for scores of reasons? What exactly are you scared is going to happen to these people? An increased risk of bronchitis? Some people would consider that a great trade for reduction of chronic pain, nausea, or seizures.

I smoke every day, but I've also come close to dying from it[0] on a number of occasions. There are definitely potential risks, but with that said, I completely agree with your points. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndro...

Someone close to me suffered from this as well. It was pretty hellish. Even when it's not life-threatening, it made it pretty much impossible to go anywhere without weed accessible to keep it from triggering on withdrawal. He finally quit altogether which cured it, but lost 50 pounds in a few months because the CHS symptoms kept persisting for that long after quitting.

We're pretty sure high-potency (legal) dabs were tied to his case, but regardless, it's very troubling to see people in the comments so dismissive on the science of CHS (and how much more common it has become in the past few years in particular).

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#164

Post by seanwilson »

nicoburns wrote: post #93
boibombeiro wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Toxic distilled alcohol isn't. Do you realize this ideia of poison alcohol was propaganda done by the government during prohibition, right? We know how to distill from millenniums, and selling poisonous alcohol isn't a very sustainable business model... I remember reading an article about the success of this campaign (was one of the first of this kinda). I'm mobile, but I'm sure someone can find a post a link.

> Do you realize this ideia of poison alcohol was propaganda from the government, right? Eh, I'm not sure about that. There are stories in the newspaper every few years about a corner stop selling cheap bootleg alcohol that has caused someone to go blind (or die) because it contained too much methanol. I for one am quite glad that alcohol production is well regulated.

> There are stories in the newspaper every few years about a corner stop selling cheap bootleg alcohol that has caused someone to go blind (or die) because it contained too much methanol. I for one am quite glad that alcohol production is well regulated.

Can you find a case of methanol poisoning for beer or wine brewing where the maker hasn't deliberately added in something extra that contains methanol (e.g. from fluids sold for industrial use)?

I find when the news reports stories like this, they bury in the story where the methanol poisoning came from so the general public are led to believe that all alcohol brewing is incredibly dangerous, including making non-distilled drinks yourself.

For example, the first link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_methanol_poisoning_inc... is https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-06/grappa-poison-william...:

"Man pleads not guilty to manslaughter and grievous bodily harm following home brew tragedy...Mr Meredith said Lynam bought methanol to use as industrial weed killer and confused it with ethanol when the home brew was made."

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#165

Post by pier25 »

darthrupert wrote: post #43
bryans wrote: post #24

In most recreational states, cannabis is taxed heavily at every step in the supply chain, so the highest quality still ends up being very expensive -- upward of $400/oz. The black market has the exact same quality at the wholesale price, typically 40-60% less than retail, with the added bonus of not having the government involved. For a daily or heavy smoker, a ~50% discount is a massive amount of money.

50% is worth the diminshed crime, and nobody should consume cannabis daily.

When I was younger I consumed cannabis daily for years and I totally agree.

Everyone is free to do whatever they want with their body, of course, but it had a negative impact on me.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#166

Post by darthrupert »

GordonS wrote: post #152
darthrupert wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seriously think you represent the majority of cannabis users, right?

What? Of course not! You made a blanket statement, and I simply refuted that by pointing to a large group that doesn't fit with it.

But you are not claiming that there's no adverse effects with your medication? I'm not sure what we're arguing about here.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#167

Post by boringg »

Justsignedup wrote: post #144
dumbfoundded wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally the taxes create operational overhead to stay compliant. Every product follows a chain of custody similar to pharmaceuticals. Even the scales used must be of the same spec used for gold weighing and cost roughly $1,500 each. It's not just the dispensaries but the wholesalers, processors, and cultivators need to buy these scales and register them once a year with the state for $100. Furthermore the batche…

As enforcement is winding down, weed dispensaries are competing against near slave wage labor. That's the problem. Illegal weed is basically being created outside the US with labor who barely gets paid, of course the cost will be higher. Because it's being imported via illegal channels this is now a customs problem. My bet is that the way to solve this would be to create a legal weed import policy, letting it sit the…

Um, its being grown in Humboldt county in the middle of the forest. It is essentially incredibly cheap forced labor - but input costs are pretty low.

There is also pot being imported but a lot of it is grown in the state/national forests.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#169

Post by hackingthelema »

MisterTea wrote: post #149
bryans wrote: post #24

In most recreational states, cannabis is taxed heavily at every step in the supply chain, so the highest quality still ends up being very expensive -- upward of $400/oz. The black market has the exact same quality at the wholesale price, typically 40-60% less than retail, with the added bonus of not having the government involved. For a daily or heavy smoker, a ~50% discount is a massive amount of money.

> For a daily or heavy smoker, a ~50% discount is a massive amount of money. Its more than that. I have a few dispensarys in CA and the experience is shit. The places are loaded with cash because they cant legally accept credit or debit cards. So you have to bring cash or use their ATM and get charged a withdrawal fee. This also means they are targets for robbery so security at these places is crazy with guards, wait…

> Its more than that. I have a few dispensarys in CA and the experience is shit. The places are loaded with cash because they cant legally accept credit or debit cards. So you have to bring cash or use their ATM and get charged a withdrawal fee. This also means they are targets for robbery so security at these places is crazy with guards, waiting rooms and check points. This meeans you have to wait upwards of 20 minutes just to get inside to wait on a counter line for another 10 minutes. The experience is miserable.

That sounds awful to me. Here in Canada, legal dispensaries accept debit, cash, and various credit cards; you can order online for in-person, same-day delivery (within a couple hours); you can order online and pickup in person, too. If you go in-person, you might have to wait if their employees are all helping other customers, but otherwise I can be in and out within 5 minutes.

> I pay $80-100 for 0.5 oz.

That seems obscene, coming from Canada. A decent-quality 28g bag of weed here tops out at 160 CAD, from what I've seen (edit: and I just bought an ounce I am perfectly happy with for 90 CAD). I'm not sure I've seen an ounce for more than that. Half-oz usually range from 60-80 CAD, depending on quality/sales.

At this point I greatly prefer the legal dispensaries to any black market weed for quality, convenience, price -- whether MOM or dealers. I think the only place dealers would have an advantage is more freedom to offer a better price to certain clients.

Post reply on HN