Prop 19 Explained: Common Questions and Misperceptions

tc1 said:

Higher overheads? Medical marijuana prices are the same as the drug dealer down the street. Marijuana is ridiculously overpriced BECAUSE it is illegal and people are willing to pay the price. Do you honestly believe the vast majority of marijuana smokers use the medical system to get their weed? If that were the case ... there wouldn't be pot dealers in Cali.

The end of prohibition = the end of price gouging. Anyone who denies this has zero credibility on issues regarding economics.

Click to expand...

Do you think that those same people will pay more just because its "legally obtained?" Or would they still want to get the most for their money? You are ignoring the premise of the questions again. The two are concurrent, which system will be utilized and which will not? Commercial cannabis will have to start charging prices not only that match the actual current market, but make up for the higher taxes and regulatory fees, and somehow make a profit while competing with a better established, less regulated, better supplied, and more frequented competitior.

It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact.

You're implying that the commercial marijuana businesses will have to pay higher tax rates and fees. That is a false assumption.

Not really when it is illegal to tax medicine.

The Ruiner said:

Not really when it is illegal to tax medicine.

Click to expand...

Medicine is taxed .... they increase the price 20,000-250,000 times the value it costs them to make a pill.
Medical marijuana prices are the same as black market prices ... because there is no lower cost alternative to compete with.

Once it's legal, there will be lower costs alternatives. Because frankly ... it doesn't cost all that much to create a massive sensi green house. Not much overhead at all in fact. So the only way to make your argument is to falsely project what the taxes and fees will be. That's nothing more than speculation ... especially given the fact that each city can set their own rates.

Sorry ... but speculating what the prices of fees and taxes might be is not a good reason to vote no on Prop 19.

Prop 19 still legalizes the possession, use, transport, and cultivation of marijuana for those 21+ and over.
If people don't want to pay the taxes and fees it will require to grow and sell commercially ... then don't. Less competition for those who will. Either way, supply is going to go up and prices will go down.

tc1 said:

Medicine is taxed .... they increase the price 20,000-250,000 times the value it costs them to make a pill.
Medical marijuana prices are the same as black market prices ... because there is no lower cost alternative.

Once it's legal, there will be lower costs alternatives. Because frankly ... it doesn't cost all that much to create a massive sensi green house. Not much overhead at all in fact. So the only way to make is your argument is to falsely project what the taxes and fees will be. That's nothing more than speculation ... especially given the fact that each city can set their own rates.

Click to expand...

Again, you are avoiding the premise of concurrent systems, but...

While the overhead to actually produce the good may be low, there is no guarentee that commercial producers will sell at lower rates, that is total wishful thinking. My argument works without any false projections, because I have made none...MMJ is not taxed, commercial MJ is, simple.

Speculation is asserting that commercial growers will charge less. That is total speculation. My arguement comes from the base reality of the tax/fee paradigm commercial cannabiz looks to thrust itself into.

I feel that the only way to counter what could be price gouging by commercial cannabis is to have another competitor, another market-share, like MMJ.

Again ... growers don't decide prices.

The consumers do. If everyone stopped buying $60 1/8ths tomorrow ... prices would go down or else they wouldn't be selling any product, thus making no money.

Same way as gas. Less people buying gas, the cheaper gas gets.

Same way as corn. Less people buying corn, the cheaper corn gets.


Until you understand how economics work, I'd suggest steering away from the subject.

tc1 said:

Sorry ... but speculating what the prices of fees and taxes might be is not a good reason to vote no on Prop 19.

Prop 19 still legalizes the possession, use, transport, and cultivation of marijuana for those 21+ and over.
If people don't want to pay the taxes and fees it will require to grow and sell commercially ... then don't. Less competition for those who will. Either way, supply is going to go up and prices will go down.

Click to expand...

I think that the reluctance to name prices is a great reason to vote know...and you will still have the competition either way right? Doesnt 19 leave 215 intact? Will MMJ will just disapear once 19 comes through? MMJ still has suppliers and buyers...

It makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact.

tc1 said:

Until you understand how economics work, I'd suggest steering away from the subject.

Click to expand...

Would you just stop with this? Dont be disrespectful.

what you say doesnt make sense. weed is not cheap right now. supply is not abundant and new taxes mean more money for the state. lucky for me i have a job. but 12%+ unemployment is a fact. 1/10+ workers are unemployed. this provides legal jobs, get over yourself. theres no reason mmj business will fail. just decrease in popularity. the growers, bud tenders, and managers from the shops that go outa business (it might be tough on em for a lil bit but theyre part of the abuse problem you admit) they will simply have to either open non medical establishments and/or look for jobs at these legal establishments, its not like they are losing a skill, and having worked at a medical shop, that can go on their resume and probably get them a job easily workin a bud bar or grow farm/facility. as i said, for the govt to make it unreasonbly expensive to do so is counterintuitive because how can they make money off a business that wont work? why is the fact that people can use 215 as a loophole and it being written into 19 a bad thing? it is written into it, already quoted the part that says it. it should make this prop even better from your perspective. you claim to have read 19 and understand what it says, i say do it again

and when did dick lee stop being an activist and become a politician? once it passes that part on severability is outa his hands, sure he can start a new bill that might lessen the restrictions, which is a good thing, but i would think the severability of it is there for when or if the federal govt move in on the state wouldnt you? id gladly take a humble retread over a bloody war.

with less than 30 days these discussions shouldnt be happening. read the prop, look up the codes and legal jibberish, understand what you can and cannot do, and be prepared for a shaky start. oh and ofcourse please vote and assure others to yes for a better overall worldview on pot as well as prosperity for the state of california. or not. this can all blow up in our faces when it fail or the fed move in lol. but vote yes anyway

I'm not being disrespectful.

You just clearly don't understand how our economy works. Economies are consumer driven ... not industrial driven. Based on supply and demand.

Why do you think everything is made in China these days? Because American consumers demanded cheaper products. If you think the legalization of marijuana will result in a lower supply ... I don't know what I can say to you that you'll actually ingest. That's a pretty silly argument to make.

Less risk = more competition. More competition = more supply.

Look no farther than Alcohol prohibition.

Alcohol was cheap ....
Prohibition hits ....
Alcohol prices spike ....
Prohibitions ends ....
Alcohol prices go back down ....


Supply and Demand

mikhail chalecki said:

what you say doesnt make sense. weed is not cheap right now. supply is not abundant and new taxes mean more money for the state. lucky for me i have a job. but 12%+ unemployment is a fact. 1/10+ workers are unemployed. this provides legal jobs, get over yourself. theres no reason mmj business will fail. just decrease in popularity. the growers, bud tenders, and managers from the shops that go outa business (it might be tough on em for a lil bit but theyre part of the abuse problem you admit) they will simply have to either open non medical establishments and/or look for jobs at these legal establishments, its not like they are losing a skill, and having worked at a medical shop, that can go on their resume and probably get them a job easily workin a bud bar or grow farm/facility. as i said, for the govt to make it unreasonbly expensive to do so is counterintuitive because how can they make money off a business that wont work? why is the fact that people can use 215 as a loophole and it being written into 19 a bad thing? it is written into it, already quoted the part that says it. it should make this prop even better from your perspective. you claim to have read 19 and understand what it says, i say do it again

and when did dick lee stop being an activist and become a politician? once it passes that part on severability is outa his hands, sure he can start a new bill that might lessen the restrictions, which is a good thing, but i would think the severability of it is there for when or if the federal govt move in on the state wouldnt you? id gladly take a humble retread over a bloody war.

with less than 30 days these discussions shouldnt be happening. read the prop, look up the codes and legal jibberish, understand what you can and cannot do, and be prepared for a shaky start. oh and ofcourse please vote yes and convince for a better worldview on pot as well as prosperity for the state of california.

Click to expand...

When did I say that weed was cheap? And do you live in california? do you know how much dank is grown here? There is PLENTY of supply. This only means money for the state if it actually is used, meaning that people have to choose commercial MJ, which there is an obvious attractive competitor - MMJ. And, to say that this creates jobs is only taking into account one part of the equation - what about the jobs lost, if the courts determine through severability, that there are indeed no protections for MMJ and the whole system goes kaput? Then you will have tons of jobs lost, and I already live in a city where there have been thousands of jobs lost as a result of dispensary closures. And I would never assert the generality you lend to unscrupulous folks in the MMJ community to everyone in MMJ...I have met some really good people.

As far as counterintuition (which has been the entire underlying theme of my premise), I see it as shark-like, but smart, business practice to price your competitiors out of the arena by advocating for higher taxes and fees...and it makes the job easier on the state to allow them to do so: less oversight with higher returns.

The loophole of 215 only exists IF 19 leaves 215 intact...which I have said it makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact! And I really dont need to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-read the bill, I have copies in my car, at home, on my phone, literally everywhere.

Severability....why in gods name did he even put the clause in there? It hands the keys to courts, not legislature or voters, to determine 19, which will determine 215. And if you dont know about Steve Cooley, then I suggest you learn...he is dangerous. And the severability clause just gives the courts the power to strike whatever they wish from the bill while retaining the rest (i.e, the "protections" lent towards 215 can easily be taken out because in reality 215 is not a part of 19 and could easily be found to be outside of the statutory construction of the bill, thus bye bye "protections" and hello "notwithstanding").

And these last days are the most important days to keep on keepin' on! I wont stop, and I definitely wont be voting yes.

tc1 said:

I'm not being disrespectful.

You just clearly don't understand how our economy works. Economies are consumer driven ... not industrial driven. Based on supply and demand.

Why do you think everything is made in China these days? Because American consumers demanded cheaper products. If you think the legalization of marijuana will result in a lower supply ... I don't know what I can say to you that you'll actually ingest. That's a pretty silly argument to make.

Less risk = more competition. More competition = more supply.

Click to expand...

Where did I say lower? Please show me...dont just make things up.

And I KNOW how this economy works... and I wont even get started on that infested meat-pit of degredation and filth.

So you think a higher supply will increase the price of marijuana or keep it the same?

Makes no sense.

I dont expect any shift really, its pretty damn easy to become a legal cultivator. I think that the people that would have been inclined to do such a thing would have already started....I don't think 19 will bring many more growers into the fold...

And in reality, DickLee & Co. will magically turn their medical operations into commercial ones overnight...thus the increase doesnt exist...its coming from sources that already exist.

sure i haphazardly judged the current supply, but that doesn't beat the fact that this will provide an even greater supply forcing prices down. the clubs you know got shut down because there were too many in the first place and had nothing to do with 19. if the current establishments are prepared they might survive the switch, but i believe in the interest of creating capital for the state it will be an easy business to get into anway so theres a good chance the will make the switch, just make a lil less profit or maybe not due to the initial supply being up, their merch cost them way less to obtain and the markdown wont happen immediately. so with low license fees and maybe low tax theres a big window for profit on both the state and personal level. and for the severity, indeed it is fishy and my reasoning is lame, but legislature apeals to the constituency aka us, and seeing how the majority of people are for the protection of mmj, i cant see it happening without backlash

i doubt anyone under 70 has any real idea on how this economy really works anyway. not saying i do, but my diplomat grandfather might. its just both sides of the arguments are based on speculation. one is implying that everyone is a criminal and out to ruin someone else, the other trust humanity and economics to work together and ultimately flourish. we can read lots of info on economics but its the old guys with the experience who know what theyre doin when it comes down to it. and theyve done pretty well with the tobacco industry if you ask me, all the wile providing steady income walking hand in hand with the government regulations

mikhail chalecki said:

sure i haphazardly judged the current supply, but that doesn't beat the fact that this will provide an even greater supply forcing prices down. the clubs you know got shut down because there were too many in the first place and had nothing to do with 19. if the current establishments are prepared they might survive the switch, but i believe in the interest of creating capital for the state it will be an easy business to get into anway so theres a good chance the will make the switch, just make a lil less profit or maybe not due to the initial supply being up, their merch cost them way less to obtain and the markdown wont happen immediately. so with low license fees and maybe low tax theres a big window for profit on both the state and personal level. and for the severity, indeed it is fishy and my reasoning is lame, but legislature apeals to the constituency aka us, and seeing how the majority of people are for the protection of mmj, i cant see it happening without backlash

Click to expand...

The clubs got shut down because the big boys in town bitched and moaned about it...meaning they were losing money - thats why I said elsewhere its like war out there...you can find examples of this happening on this forum too. And there are no current establishments that are prepared, not even dicklee's is prepared, they cant be - there are no detailed provisions with which to comply.

And I do hope that it does the state good if it passes, but I dont think that they have set it up in a manner that it will - and thats an opinion shared by the actual voter information guide being sent to all californians. Its too easy to get around, and it gives way too many incentives to be gotten around while creating expenditures for the state in hopes of taking in revenue.

But the problem of severability is that once undertaken the legislature cant do anything about it...its entirely done by the courts, and thats where it ends. The only thing that could change it eventually is a voter initiative. When a court has to sever provisions it is basically an admission that the legislature hasnt done its job, and they dont get another chance... and thats why I think it a wise move to vote know and make your voice heard in 2012 with the CCHHI.

mikhail chalecki said:

i doubt anyone under 70 has any real idea on how this economy really works anyway. not saying i do, but my diplomat grandfather might. its just both sides of the arguments are based on speculation. one is implying that everyone is a criminal and out to ruin someone else, the other trust humanity and economics to work together and ultimately flourish. we can read lots of info on economics but its the old guys with the experience who know what theyre doin when it comes down to it. and theyve done pretty well with the tobacco industry if you ask me, all the wile providing steady income walking hand in hand with the government regulations

Click to expand...

The tobacco lobby is one of the biggest lobbies in DC...that's a horrible model to emulate in my opinion. And interestingly enough, are you aware of the restrictions on tobacco cultivation?