SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by dumbfoundded » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

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…

A lot wrong with your statement. Weed isn't imported. It's grown domestically. Here was a billion dollar field in California that got caught (1). There are many more.

The next part of slave labor is just false. Trimmers I met were earning $500 to $1,000 a day. $100 per lb trimmed was pretty common. If anything, creating an import model will guarantee we use slaves. Columbia exports cannabis legally to Europe already with a lot less worker protections than in the US.

(1) https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/la-county-sheriff-m...

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

#222

Post by xyzzy21 » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:24 PM UTC

Given that it's 9:1 illegal to legal in the SF Bay Area, even this tax break might now be enough to matter. It's already lower risk and high profit to sell illegally rather than legally.

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

#223

Post by novok » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:38 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #210

ironmagma wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people who supported it said it was to get away from the deliberate imprisonment of black people who didn’t deserve criminal penalties for casual drug use. So I guess the question is, which is the worse conspiracy?

The USA has a long history of taking any industry in which black people are amassing wealth, power, or status, and stealing or destroying it. You can't maintain an intelligent, hard-working group as an underclass for multiple generations without deliberate action and sabotage each and every time advances are made. It's nothing new, just the latest installment. See also: music (jazz, rock, rap, techno, motown), Tulsa,…

How did poor ass asians rise then in a few generations?

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

#224

Post by NoSorryCannot » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

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…

I have noticed that the dispensary experience is very different in CA vs OR. Oregon dispensaries are often small headshop type places whereas every dispensary I've been to in California seems to be a more expensive operation with a bank-like queuing style. The Oregon dispensaries are also just more thick on the ground; can't throw a rock without hitting one. Not so common in CA and they're tucked into shitty office parks much of the time.

Not sure why they're so different but I don't think it's the cash-only property that is doing it, since it's the same deal in OR.

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

#225

Post by junon » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 7:20 PM UTC

darthrupert wrote: post #198

junon wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such assertions should be based on evidence.

No, I think you're wrong. When we're talking about recreational drugs, those who claim or imply that they're safe have the burden of proof.

Err, no, that's not how it works. You're the one who came to this conversation stating "nobody should use it daily", implying they are dangerous. The burden of proof falls on you.

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

#226

Post by GordonS » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

a2tech wrote: post #199

GordonS wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Purely anecdotal, but my brother has a small (illicit) still and has walked me through the process - it's fairly simple, and neither of us can figure out how these methanol poisoning cases could happen by accident. Simply, the "heads" (which are high in methanol) come out of the still first, so it's easy to remove them. In addition, methanol test strips are cheap and easy to use.

Discarding the heads is obviously best practices, but from discussions with serious scientifically minded distillers (ie chemists that enjoy brewing gin and artisanal vodka at home) the amount of methanol contained in the heads of your home distillation is hardly enough to harm you. In the worst cases if you consumed a significant volume it might give you a harsh headache (and this would be a truly large amount). If…

Aside from removing the heads to avoid death and blindness, it's also done for flavour and aroma - they have a nasty, "chemical/solvent" smell (and I'd assume taste).

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

#227

Post by klyrs » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 7:50 PM UTC

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.

This isn't a terribly apt comparison. The competition for weed is not individuals growing their own weed (which, in fact, requires land which the urban poor do not have access to), but with (a) well-established growers who have been continually operating in the black market, and (b) new legal growers and their employees who can skim some of their product for "personal use".

Individuals can and do make their own alcohol -- and it's a really expensive hobby to get it right. In terms of price per unit volume, distribution of illicit alcohol is quite problematic. You can easily fit $500 of weed into 1 liter (local prices and densities vary). Retail booze is less than a tenth of that. Bad booze would be even lower. This is a substantial impediment to the risk/reward calculus for street-level sellers all the way up to producers.

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

#228

Post by carnitas » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

mandmandam wrote: post #178

GordonS wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTR, ketamine is much more than a "horse tranquilizer" - it is used extensively in emergency rooms, for depression and neuropathic pain, and in general vetinary medicine. And of course, it has wide-scale use recreationaly. I presume the "horse tranquilizer" moniker came about as some kind of anti-ketamine propaganda.

You're not wrong; but I meant it quite literally, as in, it was being stolen from vets and thrown into incredibly shitty hash.

I find it hard to believe people would mix $100/g ketamine to make $10-$20/g weed have more mass. US prices

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

#229

Post by mandmandam » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

carnitas wrote: post #228

mandmandam wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not wrong; but I meant it quite literally, as in, it was being stolen from vets and thrown into incredibly shitty hash.

I find it hard to believe people would mix $100/g ketamine to make $10-$20/g weed have more mass. US prices

The ketamine was for effect on very weak hash, not mass.

And did I mention the theft, in the very short comment you're replying to.The US might have a thriving K market but 90's Ireland did not.

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

#230

Post by poulsbohemian » Mon, Dec 06, 2021, 10:52 PM UTC

As someone who doesn't use cannabis, can someone explain to me why there continues to be an underground? Saw an article in news a couple weeks ago explaining that there are problems in Oregon again with unlicensed producers in wilderness areas again. One of the primary reasons I was in favor of legalization was that I didn't like the prospects of running into an illegal grow operation when I'm out enjoying Mother Nature. Is it just a matter of economics, IE: the underground, untaxed producers are so much cheaper that there's still an active market?