
Legal marijuana sales forecast to hit $23B in 4 years - prostoalex
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/03/20/legal-marijuana-sales-forecast-hit-23b-4-years/82046018/
======
sneak
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.

~~~
tn13
And so does India. Marijuana was legal in India til 1985 then US government
forced Indian government criminalize it.

~~~
TheLogothete
Why did the US gvmnt do that?

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
The US uses the DEA to project political power into areas where a military
presence would be rejected

~~~
TheLogothete
My question was _why_ did the US government do that.

------
justsaysmthng
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.

~~~
bcook
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.

~~~
justsaysmthng
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.

~~~
encoderer
To qualify as addition it must not be only habitual but also harmful.

~~~
karmajunkie
citation?

~~~
encoderer
The dictionary, for starters. [http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/addiction](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/addiction)

------
drawkbox
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](http://www.gallup.com/poll/186260/back-legal-marijuana.aspx)

[2] [http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-
cut...](http://www.marketplace.org/2016/03/14/education/illinois-cuts-funding-
its-public-universities)

[3] [http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-
university...](http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/13/pf/college/public-university-
tuition-increase/)

~~~
rmc
> _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

~~~
cbd1984
It effectively does: the fourth amendment. More explicit verbiage is unlikely
to matter.

Besides, nobody said Europe wasn't a surveillance society.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
Zigurd
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?

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
Zigurd
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.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
Zigurd
> _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.

------
at-fates-hands
Mark my words, now that states see the incredible tax revenues from this
industry, they're going to tax the fuck out of it, and then regulate the hell
out of it to discourage and limit new businesses popping up all over (which is
already happening anyways).

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.

~~~
peteretep

        > and limit new businesses
        > popping up
    

So they're going to try and maximise tax revenue by stopping new businesses?
Gotcha

~~~
sageabilly
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.

~~~
fluxquanta
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.

~~~
at-fates-hands
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.

~~~
fluxquanta
That goes beyond a "personal supply", though. Check out "space buckets".

------
pakiko82
Has anyone figured out how one could get exposure to this in the stock market?
Any other way to legally invest in this boom?

~~~
hourislate
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.

~~~
my_username_is_
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?

------
JoeAltmaier
For comparison: tobacco is a $600B industry annually.

------
kazuyan
Wondering how big this is compare to Netherlands :) Marijuana has been legal
there for long time.

~~~
nsomaru
IIRC, marijuana is not legal in the Netherlands, but is 'tolerated'.

~~~
kazuyan
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-308218?rm=eu)

------
interdrift
Great! Let's eliminate crime !!

------
cndnncxn
Say what you want about ending the drug war, but I'm not quite in support of
creating a whole new tobacco industry.

~~~
zaroth
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.

