
Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create A Panic In California - mcantelon
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126806429
======
illumin8
This is a good thing. If it becomes legalized, it becomes commoditized and
pushes the small basement operations out because it is no longer profitable.
In the end, prices are lower, crime is reduced, and the consumer and general
public benefit from safer product and reduced crime.

~~~
ErrantX
For the most part I agree with your arguments, except:

 _crime is reduced_

I'm not so sure that is the case (well, apart from the fact that selling the
drug would no longer be illegal :)).

It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that may
increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway.

But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm
not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it seems
unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D

~~~
pyre
> _It wouldn't reduce crime due to people taking the drug, technically that
> may increase - but I suspect (for weed) it's a low value anyway._

That depends on what you mean by 'crime due to people taking the drug.' How
much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie, cheat
and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that much
cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit.

> _But would it reduce crime associated with drug dealers/drug gangs etc.? I'm
> not so sure; there are plenty of other illegal substances to sell so it
> seems unlikely dealers et al will just give up and go work in 7-Eleven :D_

True, but then it would no longer be 'pot-related crime' where people get all
worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society' because it's 'causing all
this crime.' You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes
regardless, and if you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and
profit, it will just be replaced by another.

~~~
ErrantX
_How much of the drug-user related crime is due to the users seeking to lie,
cheat and steal their way to the next 'score?' If their 'next score' is that
much cheaper it reduces the need to commit crimes just to feed the habit._

We still have to account for potential taxation etc. so the price might not go
right down. Secondly there will certainly be more users and possibly people
using more of the drug.

With all that said I highly doubt there is a meaningful statistic for pot
abusers causing crime; it's just not the profile of the drug.

 _You've just pointed out that people will commit crimes regardless, and if
you take away one form of committing crimes for fun and profit, it will just
be replaced by another._

Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered that
a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply because
what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to fix/reduce
crime then it's a pointless exercise :)

 _where people get all worked up over how 'pot is destroying our society'
because it's 'causing all this crime.'_

So then it becomes "crack is destroying our society" - there will always be
people saying these things. Just like there are some people who say "alcohol
is destroying our society". I guess pot is more widely lambasted due to being
illegal (and possibly due to the fact it tends to inhibit abusers interactions
in a much more noticable way)

In this situation I would probably support legalization; if you look at the
drugs profile in the area most of the production is from small/medium gangs
and individuals. The legal trade has changed that profile even more.

The major stumbling blocks I feel exist _generally_ for legalization of pot is
that in other areas larger, more dangerous drugs gangs exist and I a) don't
think we should give into them and b) don't imagine they will let us take a
lucrative industry from them without a fight.

~~~
pyre
> _Agreed, that's exactly what I meant. Unfortunately I've never considered
> that a particularly good argument on the side of pro-legalization. Simply
> because what's the use in pushing crime somewhere else; if the aim is to
> fix/reduce crime then it's a pointless exercise :)_

My point was that a number of people point to crime as the reason to keep it
illegal. "If it's causing all this crime _now_ , then making it more easily
accessible to larger amounts of people would cause _even more_ crime." Crime
is the symptom, but <insert illegal drug here> is not the disease.

> _Just like there are some people who say "alcohol is destroying our
> society"_

To a lesser extent though. People like to attack drugs that are illegal much
more just because:

\- They have been illegal. (i.e. the government says it's bad so therefore it
must really be bad)

\- They have been demonized for very long time. (i.e. "I grew up hearing about
how bad <drug> is; therefore that is 'the way things are.'")

\- They are an unknown. (i.e. "I've never taken the drug, and I don't know
anyone that has taken the drug so therefore it's very easy for me to just
believe all the demonizing stories I hear and blame drug users for all the
ills of the world.") This is very similar to the attitudes that a lot of
people have (or have had) towards homosexuals. Some of the ideas that people
have about how 'all' homosexuals are, are completely outrageous, but they hold
these ideas very easily because they've never met/known someone that isn't
heterosexual. (I'm not _really_ saying that 'drug users' are just persecuted
like gays are/were. There are plenty of people have have wild fantasies about
what the reality of drug use _really_ is, and I'm using the wild fantasies
that people have about what homosexuals are _really_ like as a parallel.)

~~~
ErrantX
_People like to attack drugs that are illegal much more just because:_

Yeh, sorry that was my point. I was trying to say; it's not an ideal argument
because there will always be people who say these things.

In a small part they are right (because heavy pot smokers are generally low-
achieving/non-functioning due to the drug). But then the same applies to heavy
alcohol abusers.

Basically; it's possible to simply ignore those who blame pot/alcohol/broccoli
etc. because they will always moan about something regardless of what happens
:P

~~~
confuzatron
"heavy pot smokers are generally low-achieving/non-functioning due to the
drug"

That's just like, your opinion man.

(update: I am lowering the tone with a Lebowski quote)

~~~
ErrantX
It's at least an empirical opinion. Apart from some extraordinary individuals
I am not aware of a _heavy_ pot smoker (from among my retinue of
friends/aquaintances/people I know about) who does not suffer from some form
of associated problem.

I'm willing & happy to be proved wrong, but there hasn't been enough studies
yet to prove one way or the other (though as far as I last read it was
starting to come down on the side of what I have seen)

------
nkassis
This is pretty interesting situation considering that it's as close to free
market as you can get. Legalization could be good or bad but I think the more
people, who currently don't use it due to legality, would consume pot and thus
keep the prices stable. I have no experience with growing pot but it seems to
be a pretty easy thing to do and thus supply is abundant. The market should
readjust but that will be harsh

~~~
pstuart
I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.

~~~
hugh3
I was tempted to give one, but I don't think this is a good forum for
discussing such a boring political issue. Please keep pro/anti drug
legalization arguments elsewhere.

~~~
jokermatt999
I'm new(ish) here, but I don't see why not. HN tends to have a much better
atmosphere for serious discussion than most web forums I've seen. I'd be happy
to hear both sides of this argument here, and hopefully to see more reasonable
debate than what is usually presented.

~~~
davidw
It has a pleasant atmosphere in part because it mostly avoids inflammatory
topics like politics. I'd much rather talk startups and business, and maybe
living abroad with patio11, for instance, than discuss why he's a Republican
and I'm not. The former is bound to be a useful, interesting discussion; the
latter most likely not.

Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on
an internet fourm.

------
teilo
My only question is - if California legalizes, will the Obama administration
step in and block the move just like the Clinton administration did with
Oregon and medical marijuana?

~~~
fjabre
It's a good question indeed. Obama's drug czar has stated on several occasions
he's completely against legalization: [http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/news/97101-obama...](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/news/97101-obama-drug-plan-firmly-opposes-legalization-as-california-
vote-looms)

------
davemabe
Maybe it's time to give these guys a bailout.

------
Vivtek
The future is a weirder place than I anticipated.

------
MrJagil
Legalization, taxation and regulation.

Please.

------
byrneseyeview
I wonder if it would be legal to create a futures market in weed prices. This
would allow producers to hedge. They would just settle by looking at average
prices (per some agreed-upon source) rather than physical delivery.

Futures markets in heroin and cocaine could be used to predict political
instability in Afghanistan and Colombia, respectively.

~~~
cperciva
The US government created a futures market in political assassinations a few
years ago, so I can't imagine they'd have a problem with a futures market in
drug prices.

~~~
byrneseyeview
This market was very controversial, and eventually got shut down:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_Analysis_Market>

So unfortunately it might be a little complex as a government project. But
surely there's at least one wealth stoner who might want such a market to
exist. Maybe James Cayne wants something new to trade.

------
madprogrammer
If marijuana isn't legalized in fall I'm seriously going to start lossing
faith in humanity. I can't believe it's already 2010 and a herb that does
nothing but good to everybody is ilegal for all the wrong reasons.

------
fjabre
What the market predicts:
[http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetail...](http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=702407&z=1273457077941)

------
jacquesm
Surprising number of upvotes on this article, I never figured there would be
such a big intersection between hacking and an interest in drugs.

------
tjmaxal
This seems like a pretty simple supply and demand problem. Basic
Microeconomics.

------
korch
I have long wondered what the impact would be on _other illegal drug prices_
if MJ is legalized and undergoes a massive price drop. Many happy accidents
from unintended consequences seem possible. If this removes ~20% of the
revenue going to cartels and organized crime, will prices of other drugs go up
or down? Will this lead to an up tick or down tick in inter-gang violence?
Will local gangs in our communities lose enough revenue to put them out of
business? Will there be fewer thugs on the streets committing crimes in
general, all because you can buy a pound of MJ for $100 instead of $10,000.

It's time to stop the War on Some Drugs (as Robert Anton Wilson so eloquently
put it). I'm glad to see that it sounds like we're getting closer, with
California leading the way. The amount of abuse, crime and fraud in the
_legal_ drug industry dwarfs the illegal drug industry combined, so by taking
the spot light off this silly war on drugs, we can achieve many bigger policy
goals in the pharmaceutical industry.

Another plus will be we can finally help to strengthen Mexico. Anything about
Mexico is politicized due to the current economic issues with immigration and
drugs, so you see very few people calling a duck a duck, and saying the US
indirectly caused spill-over failure in Mexico by having the war on drugs at
all. Anyone who wants to fix immigration and stop all the rampant crime on the
border, well, you need to also be on board with stopping the War on Some
Drugs. If Mexico was as stable as Canada there wouldn't be as many immigrants,
and if Mexico wasn't run by ultra-violent drug lords making billions off of US
consumers, then not as many Mexicans would even want to leave their own
country.

100 years from now everyone will look back at the decades of the war on drugs
and consider our entire culture as being cruel and barbarous. As a society, we
punished millions of people and ruined countless lives because we chose to
collectively treat drug use and chemical addiction as a criminal issue,
instead of a health issue. To be fair, we simply didn't have the technology to
frame it as a public health issue, treat it medically, and thereby take it out
of the hands of law enforcement and the courts. But we could have at least not
ruined millions of innocent people's lives.

------
wendroid
That's $4.40 a gram, £3. Street price here starts about £5

~~~
antidaily
It was ~10 euro/gram in a couple coffee shops in Amsterdam when I visited
recently.

~~~
whimsy
Well, you know what they say about markup in the food industry.

------
drivebyacct
The sad thing is, people will indict the poor economic situation as a result
of marijuana when its a result of every major "rush". People having no sense
of how to plan financially.

