
How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better - krigath
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/17/how-marijuana-legalization-in-colorado-and-washington-is-making-the-world-a-better-place/
======
aaronbrethorst
Colorado, probably. Washington, not yet.

The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized
about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand
in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still
flourishing: [http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-
wash...](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-washington-
state-screwed-up-its-legal-pot-system)

Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot
production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of
things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal
supply for the state's demand. [http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-
allow-more-lega...](http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-
legal-marijuana-growing-279593732.html)

But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number
of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a
typo).

~~~
kyllo
And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram
which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.

~~~
krschultz
That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or
is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live
in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to
keep it all above board & guarantee quality.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is,
apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day:
[http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-
seattles-o...](http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-
only-pot-store-uncle-ikes-sold-13736-of-marijuana-per-day-in-first-week/)

So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke,
but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price
increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state,
and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to
me: [http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-
news/index.ssf/2...](http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-
news/index.ssf/2013/06/drug_cartels_in_oregon_violenc.html)

~~~
musername
If _you_ smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be
so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already
expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular
basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects
are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even
come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about
convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much
of the stoner's cultural background.

~~~
ddingus
That really needs to be qualified.

If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly
among people with modest to low financial means.

However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are
recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users)
They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the
activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market
dealers.

~~~
musername
>They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the
activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market
dealers.

That's the hypocracy. It's not their behaviour that leads to acceptance, it's
the state deciding what's acceptable or not . That is to incure tax and
decrease spending, for all I care, and maybe a twisted social experiment of
sorts, but not in first line for the well being of the people. Supporting that
with the rhetorical finger pointing at The Terrorist is so utterly
hypocritical, I'm at loss of words. Surely, the argument is not immoral, but
it's completely missing the point. Us against The Terrorist is too simple a
frame of mind, it's agrevating, but not to a calmed down stoner of course.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I'm not a stoner. I've smoked pot once this year. In January. The state has
accepted the _de facto_ status quo and made it the _de jure_ status quo by way
of a popular vote (which won with an 11.4% margin). People are going to smoke
pot, or they're not. The legalization of marijuana is unlikely to meaningfully
change users' and potential users' relationship to it.

Also, the story I linked to previously was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize. I
think that qualifies as being slightly more substantiated than "rhetorical
finger pointing".

Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem
attack to try to make your point.

~~~
vegedor
It's not ad hominem, it's hyperbolic and a reference to the synergy of
_Distraction_ and _FUD_. Of course, legalization makes a difference. Dozens of
people will think Weed is not a drug anymore, just like alcohol and tobacco
are often not taken serious.

Meanwhile, you use an argument of authority. Keep your disappointment. I could
point to a couple sources about the Terrorist strawman, but I'm sure you know
the context.

------
pmoriarty
The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of
what's happening.

I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting
attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the
potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better.

Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the
60's and 70's.

I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic
revolution.

~~~
sopooneo
I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics,
though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I
do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a
renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are
habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

~~~
pmoriarty
You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press.

Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but
that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't
revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures
and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the
potential of those people who best made use of them.

Psychedelics hold this potential.

------
flinkblinkhink
I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised.
Colorado has gone too far.

It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is
sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or
promoted.

It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in
the same terms as tobacco.

It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and
food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to
do.

~~~
yodsanklai
I agree with you. There's a whole trend of advertising cannabis as something
cool (or as a miracle "natural" medication that cures everything, from anxiety
to back pain).

Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been
smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it.

That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some
reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.

~~~
flinkblinkhink
The obvious question is, are the tobacco companies allowed to sell marijuana
cigarettes mixed with tobacco?

~~~
yodsanklai
Cannabis can be consumed in various forms. For instance in Europe, most people
mix cannabis resin ("hashish") with tobacco, whereas in North America people
smoke weed pure. Other ways include vaporisation and ingestion. Mixing with
tobacco is probably the worse way as nicotine is highly addictive and we all
know the health problems associated with tobacco.

So no, I don't think they should be authorised to sell their tobacco
cigarettes with cannabis inside! Actually, I hope that legalisation will give
the opportunity to inform people about this.

------
guard-of-terra
I wonder if the names of people who put Marijuana in the strictest schedule of
various laws and agreements are known.

I think someone should dig them up, so the world can know its heroes by name.

~~~
jakejake
There's a lot of interesting names here
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937)

~~~
guard-of-terra
It's interesting that it was introduced by a Dem. I think there should be a
move that Dem formally apologise for this law - or all the weed smokers no
longer vote for them and they become unelectable.

~~~
dllthomas
The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no
current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill
was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the
mistake. Holding _current_ Democrats _disproportionately_ responsible is
myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of _any_ party who are on the wrong
side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who views it as the most
important issue ("weed smoker" or not).

~~~
aaronbrethorst
Representative Doughton, who introduced the bill, was a Southerner and _named
after Robert E. Lee_. I'm pretty sure he'd have been a Republican if he'd
entered politics 40 years later (i.e. around when he retired).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Doughton](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Doughton)

That said, Democrats are absolutely to blame, too, for the current state of
our misguided drug war:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=X6...](http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=X6Q_6yrSe4&dq=mandatory%20minimums%20democrats%20murakawa&lr&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false)

n.b. the author of the book linked to above is a close friend of mine.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Stalin, who caused death to hundreds of thousands of people, would probably be
not be a communist if he entered politics after the fall of communism. Doesn't
make communists apologising for him a bad thing; doesn't make communists being
stubborn about him a good thing.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
I'm sorry that the Dixiecrats were a bunch of racist assholes, and I'm glad
they switched to the Republican party. Does that help?

~~~
guard-of-terra
Yes. That does.

------
jamesash
People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it
proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the
$112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start
advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps
in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because
that's where we're going.

~~~
ddingus
Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there.

Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those
actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it.

IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and
there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to
the majority of potential users.

For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type
model will end up working well.

If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety
come out of those efforts.

------
3rd3
I’m wondering to which extent this is simply a temporary effect because the
overall population is pleased with this decision. I don’t believe it’s only
that but I could imagine that it contributes with a low two digit percentage.

------
lisper
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an
unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't
work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it.

Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the
wealthy _three_ times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and
most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three
times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.

~~~
canjobear
It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work.
[http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf](http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf)

Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty
clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in
reducing alcohol consumption.

~~~
lisper
I didn't say that it didn't _work_ , I said it was an _unmitigated disaster_.
A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow
"worked" too.

~~~
jMyles
Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of
eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at
all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to
consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has
eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of
heroin and even stronger drugs.

As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as
a Jim Crow as well.

~~~
ddingus
Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances,
making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens
with Grannie's decorative flowers.

That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is
spot on.

