Legal Marijuana Isn’t the Boon Small Businesses Thought It Would Be
fivethirtyeight.com
fivethirtyeight.com
I honestly don't understand this, since it is a lot less expensive to build a highly secure double-perimeter razorwire fence around a farm than it is to pay $4500/month electrical bills.
Sunlight is free.
In Canada's recently announced system, which gives a lot of control to individual provinces, BC has announced that they will allow greenhouse based farms.
- Taxes on weed in CA are going to be very high, ~20%. This may drive black market sales.
- Online ordering through Eaze is popular, which might drive the familiar winner take all online commerce market dynamic. A lot of people don’t care for the dispensary experience.
At the end of the day, this is an agricultural product, and a commodity. It was optimistically compared with beer, but beer is made from a recipe, of which there are endless variations to try. Some heavy users care about certain strains and the like, but I have a feeling that for most people weed is weed. The new edible products are a development, but those too will be comoditized.
As recently as 5-6 years ago, I would have agreed with this sentiment. These days, however I think this mentality is no longer a responsible one to propagate.
Today's cannabis is, in general, much more potent than it used to be. And now there are ways to consume very large amounts of this extremely potent product in a very short amount of time (concentrates, oils, edibles, etc). No matter how it's consumed, today's average cannabis user is getting a lot more in their hit than prior generations. This means that the difference between a sativa and indica is no longer necessarily a nuanced one.
Today people need to be reasonably sure that what they're getting will meet their needs, because for some one hit may send them spiraling in the totally wrong direction. A user with anxiety issues may need to entirely steer clear of sativas because they are known to cause anxiety attacks. But someone who needs to be around other people may need to avoid indicas because they are known to cause delayed responses and decreased social acumen.
This risk is compounded when people use one of these new, super-powerful 'hybrid' strains because their effects on the individual user are harder to predict than pure indica or sativa strains.
Legalization will put new emphasis on educating users on safe practices, harm reduction, and other such things. In the US, public schools teach harm reduction strategies with alcohol in its various forms, and one day it will probably need to do the same for cannabis.
What's the source for this, I'm genuinely interested? As far as I'm aware, this is more a marijuana folklore thing than an effect that science has verified.
As for the former,
1) its widely documented and I can personally attest that marihuana caused anxiety attacks, including one clear case of a psychosis, in numerous occasions.
2) It is also known that people who suffer from schizophrenia should stay clear from marihuana. The same's true if they have a relative who suffers from schizophrenia. Why? Elevated risks to trigger a schizophrenic episode
3) I worked in a Dutch coffeeshop and know that, to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned. There's also a lot of hybrids though, as well as some conflicting info. Decent website is Leafly [1]. I was wary to give tourists sativa, as well as spacecakes which we also sold. I recommended them different things instead (including: not buying). My boss didn't give a shit though, as long as people were 18+.
For a good movie about the subject of drug-induced psychosis, see "Das weisse Rauschen" (The White Sound) [2]. Although in this movie the drug which causes the trigger is "magic mushrooms" this movie still takes a good shot at what a drug-induced psychosis could look like.
> to put it black-and-white: sativa gets one high, while indica gets one stoned.
It's not the first time I've heard this idea, but I have never seen an authoritative source, only the suggestion from marijuana connoisseurs that it is the case. Studies have shown that almost all commercially available marijuana is mislabeled and that many popular marijuana strains are not necessarily chemically distinct despite evident morphological differences - that is to say, most people probably don't know what they're consuming so it may not be wise to rely on the wisdom of the crowd to vet these ideas.
https://opencannabisproject.org/external-data-resources/
I have not seen the mislabeling studies you note. Most of the labels -- strain names -- are not intrinsically meaningful anyway.
w/r/t being chemically distinct, the research I've read show clear differences in cannabinoid and terpene composition between major strains, hybrids created from those, and within all of these per particular harvest, origin, conditions.
The pharmacological effects of those compositions on you won't be exact -- they provide guidance.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi...
(ibuprofen, gin, and brussel sprouts don't effect you and me exactly the same way, either, but we have the general idea of what's involved.)
there's more anecdotal evidence than hard scientific research available because cannabis has been consumed for 3,000 years, but it's been an illegal narcotic in the US for the last 60.
If you check strains on e.g. Leafly you can see that most are hybrids, and you can also see their ancestry (how they came about). Although in the shop I worked, hybrids weren't sorted as such; all strains were sorted on effect. Clerks were smokers themselves, so they knew what they were selling, because they knew whether they'd get stoned or high. New strains were enthusiastically tested.
What you could do is map the smell to the terpene profile.
This is my greatest frustration around the use of drugs. I think it's ludicrous that more research isn't done on substances that millions of people take.
I don't know about marketing per se, but I was at a dispensary in a recreational state a couple of years back and the THC:CBD ratio was prominently displayed as part of each strain's description, and the staff seemed very well-versed with helpful advice for noobs on the expected effects.
I'd call them guidelines rather than scientifically-verified law. Just like other psychoactive substances, results can vary wildly among individuals. My anecdotal experiences do largely line up with the folklore, for whatever it's worth. It goes beyond cannabis, too. For me, drinking gin can be very dangerous because for some reason I get hammered after one or two drinks, whereas drinking scotch of the same proof does not affect me nearly as much.
It's been illegal for so long (and at the U.S. Federal level, still is) that I can't imagine there's been much research on this.
My conviction is that all these theories on strains having such different effects is mostly BS. Until we have scientific evidence, I stay very skeptical.
How scientific do you want your evidence to be? [0] It's pretty much a fact that different strains have different ratios of cannabinoids and terpenes, these can additionally be altered by the way the cannabis is cured and stored.
Badly cured cannabis still has lot's of chlorophyll in it, making it rough to smoke and changing its effect profile, many people get headaches/depressions from smoking such cannabis.
In that regard, your "one datapoint" is nothing but an anecdotal experience which can be explained by a number of reasons: People who are already prone to anxiety attacks can have their moods increased if they feel stressed out by the whole situation of being "the center of attention" for trying the first time. Especially with a high THC strain with barely any CBD in it to counter the THC effect [1]
Just like overfocusing on trying to "feel the effects" can give the user the impression he's not feeling any effects at all, which is something I've witnessed plenty of times with first-time users: They will be sitting there trying to focus on the effects, pretend they don't feel any, while not even realizing they are already on a small trip with their whole "Look at me I'm not feeling anything over here!" behavior, while they expected the effects to be something like seeing pink elephants roaming trough the room.
A lot of this has to do with decades-old stigma about the effects of cannabis forming a lot of users expectations about its effects.
I hear that a lot (especially from anti-legalization people), but I don't believe it makes any difference. What makes a difference to the consumer is the amount of cannabinoids consumed, not the concentration in a given amount of weed.
The typical weed consumption experience is to vaporize/smoke/eat some small amount, and reiterate until satisfaction. Once the sweet spot is reached the experience becomes less enjoyable. If your weed is twice as much potent, you'll iterate two times less...
One could imagine a scenario where a user is caught off-guard by a super strong weed, but I don't see this happening. Standard THC rates are 15-20%(?) you're not going to get much more than that amount and you will always notice at the first inhalation if the weed is more potent than what you're used to.
Edibles are different and need more caution. You can eat an arbitrary amount of cannabinoid and get sick. But this is not related to the weed potency.
I totally agree with you that schools should teach harm reduction strategies (don't smoke week but use vaporizers, be careful with edibles, don't drive, don't make it a habit). I also think that prevention should focus on the real risks of regular cannabis usage, which exist and are not benign (de-socialization, learning impairment...) instead of trying to scare people with things that are extremely unlikely to happen.
Oh, it does. A pre-rolled joint at a coffeeshop from 2017 is far more potent than a pre-rolled joint at a coffeeshop from 1997 or the 70s/80s. Beginners often cannot roll their own, and think that they should finish the whole pre-rolled joint all by themselves or together with that one friend.
Beginners: everyone who smoked was once a beginner. Do yourself a favour and take one puff. Then use an ash tray to put the joint off.
Nevermind the people who want to try spacecake, or make their own hash oil.
Also, not everyone's as sensitive, and stomach/sugar has effect as well.
It also has a long half-life, and I've witnessed people starting to believe all kind of paranormal/new age shenanigans thanks to regular cannabis usage. Heck, I've done that myself as well.
Problem with the advice "don't make it a habit" is that many drug users have serious mental problems which they combat (successfully or not) with self medication.
Not much different than alcohol in that respect. Some people abuse high dosages but most don't because it's usually an unpleasant experience. The problem with marijuana specifically is the advocacy/culture that celebrates over indulgence in a way we haven't seen since the glory days of 'Mad Men' style alcoholism.
For infrequent users, I believe the potency does make a difference because undesired effects could come with as little as a single hit.
Cannabis potency 10 years ago was 7%, and yes today's rates are at around 15%. I figure that means that in 10 years the potency of a single hit of cannabis has doubled.
WA’s taxes are ungodly high for weed (EDIT: w/o looking it up, more than 20%, that’s for sure). Didn’t seem to slow down things much. A new store just opened closer to the house, and I don’t know of a single store that has closed. Personally, I’m more than willing to pay the “convenience fee” to just drive down the road any time I like and score some weed. That, and let’s do what we can to encourage the legal stuff, eh? We collectively get one shot at this, let’s not screw it up.
But if WA is any indication, give it a few years of high prices, then the prices will settle down. Pot was outrageously expensive in WA when it first legal, but it’s pretty reasonable now, I think.
As for online ordering, yeah, that’s going to be a thing. Because the experience of “here’s a menu, hurry and make a selection from 200 different items while you’re in line.” doesnt work for me, either. One local shop offers online ordering, and the only reason I don’t use them exclusively is that they’re out of the way.
But you’re right, pot isn’t beer, it’s corn. The only reason I don’t grow some next to the tomato plants is because WA says I can’t. So the only barrier from me taking production in-house is legal, which seems to be a pretty thin moat with which to protect your castle.
(And it is quite literally a black/white thing, too - the people selling weed in shops are pretty much uniformly white, whereas the illegal market was a lot more mixed-race.)
The only pro I see for the line is that the staff can help you pick out a nice strain depending on your needs and you don't have to do the research yourself. Personally, I'm in the same boat as you. I get stressed out looking at all the choices while in the store and almost exclusively use the online ordering system before I leave the house. By the time I reach the store (a few minutes away) the order is ready for pickup.
It's crazy to think of how far it's come in the few years since it got legalized. From the quasilegal delivery services or even worse going to Westlake Park or another sketch location at night to a clean, accessible system with some of the nicest people around.
I’m actually over in Redmond. Choices are a little slimmer in the ‘burbs, I notice. :-) No matter, I’ve pretty much settled on what I want, so I go to the one closer, waltz in and get it, go home. When I walk and they say, “the usual, mikestew?”, then I’ll know I need to dial back. :-)
If the Darknet is any indication (and according to High Times[0], it is), you're right about this. Cannabis is the most popular product sold on the various illicit online drug marketplaces.
[0] https://hightimes.com/business/marijuana-is-the-most-popular...
I don't see a fundamental reason the cost of weed won't be around the price of tobacco in a fully legalized and big-ag growing environment. 5-10 years?
One major issue is retail store licenses; few cities are deciding to license stores, and they're not happening on day 1 (for the most part).
Another issue is licenses for growers. Currently growing licenses only allow 1 acre under cultivation, and it sounds like production will be nowhere near high enough to meet demand, at least initially.
It sounds like CA's start into the legal market will be a lot rockier than most.
Weed is weed when it's illegal--you take what the dealer's got or you get nothing. Same thing with booze, during Prohibition. When it's actually possible to comparison-shop, you see a lot more preferences developing.
Never underestimate the power of marketing.
Everywhere I look in our world, marketing is king. It doesn't matter how crappy your product is, if it's marketed well, people will buy it.
Budweiser. The people who like to talk about bear don't drink Bud. Nevertheless, by volume and market share, Bud is probably America's favorite beer. If you want to be the pot equivalent of a craft beer company then complain about the prices and taxation. But if you want to play in the big leagues, price and consistency are all that matters.
That oversimplification works both ways: For many people, beer is just beer. And just like with beer, there are endless variations of cannabis strains, different ways or preparation and different ways of consuming. Just the way cannabis is cured can make a vast difference in taste and effect.
With alcohol, many places often have centuries-old traditions for consumption and brewing, cannabis just started going down that route, so imho it's just logical that there's a lot of catching up to happen because most of the knowledge we collected is stuck in the realm of "illegality" and spread thin between users, with no real way of consolidating it in a useful way.
It's gonna take a lot of time to lose the stigma which has been, purposely, build up around cannabis for decades.
There also exists a black market for cigarettes because of taxes, but the vast majority of smokers buy cigarettes legally because it is easier and safer and runs no risk of arrest.
This may drive black market sales.
The last I heard was that those with a prescription wouldn't have to pay the tax, and since it's so easy to get a prescription, at least ATM, I would imagine that would be the first avenue before the black market (heck, I would even say that getting it from friends who grow their own would be a gray market angle that would probably happen before getting it from the black market suppliers).
But I don't know if there have been any changes in the law during this past year regarding taxation for medical patients.
Medical users with a county Medical Marijuana Information Card (MMIC) are only exempt from a portion of this, the 8.5% sales and use tax. [2]
To get an MMIC you first need a doctor's recommendation (typically $40/year). The maximum cost of an MMIC from the county is $100/year, or $50/year for Medi-Cal patients.
So to save the 8.5% sales tax, you need to visit a cannabis doctor, wait in line, and pay $40, then visit the county public health department, wait in line again, and pay as much as another $100.
If you are a heavy user, this could save you some money, but I have a feeling that most people in California who are currently medical users will simply drop the medical recommendation and buy under the new adult-use rules.
[1] https://www.shopharborside.com/adult-use-regs.html (expand the "new taxes" item)
1 - https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Docs/Reports/2...
[1]: https://dor.wa.gov/about/statistics-reports/recreational-and...
The state excise tax (pre-sales tax) is 37% according to https://lcb.wa.gov/mj2015/faqs-on-taxes .
Dunno, it's easier to order black market cigarettes online with a credit card than to order black market marijuana.
Anecdotally, I've seen a ton of small delivery services popping up in the Bay Area recently and doing well. Turns out selling weed is profitable.
I'd be surprised if that's the case, and even if it's the case in the beginning, I'd be surprised if it's still the case after a few years.
It's like any other delivery service, but I suspect the economics work better than food delivery because users make larger orders, you don't need to pick up from restaurants, and freshness is not as important (comparing to a central kitchen for food delivery).
Let me know if you have any questions related to the data that I can answer (it may take a few hours since I am about to hit the sack).
Related: here's our Show HN post that was on the front page of HN earlier this year. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767772
There will certainly be a niche market for gourmet, organic, homegrown and cared for buds, but for the remainder of products: oils, waxes, edibles, infusions - you are not going to notice the difference between a small business and a larger growing operation except on price.
It seems rather obvious when you think about it though. I would compare cannabis to produce rather than beer/wine/spirits, in the sense that your small growers are going to have a tough time competing with giant farm operations, and will really have to differentiate themselves in specific ways to actually make it worth while.
I will pay tax on an 1/8th before I will subject myself to Criminal Prosection.
I think Hillary was against legalizing the herb wasn't she? Did she ever reverse position?
Politicians are just politicians for the most part. Whatever they think will get them in office.
It's the same reason the GOP is gradually shifting its mindset on how to deal with opioid addiction (incarceration vs treatment, decriminalization, lessened criminalization, etc). GOP voting districts are getting hammered by it. It has become personal. It's likely everyone living in a GOP-dominated area, knows someone who is dealing with or has dealt with opioid addiction. There are now millions of opioid addicts in GOP voting districts in a given five year time span.
$7.50 a gram? Weed should cost about the same amount as catnip.
I can buy 4 oz of catnip for $8 on eBay. That's over 100g, about 8 cents a gram.
However, I don't see why it wouldn't be similar to growing bittering hops like the ones used by beer homebrewers.
I can buy a pound of "Mosaic" hops -- 450 grams -- for $30 at my local homebrew supply store. That's less than 7 cents per gram....
What's with the catnip comparison?