Hacker News Reader

Comment by gamblor956 | Hacker News Reader

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...

First search result in Google. Black market for pot growing in CA at the expense of the legalized market.

The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move.

No, the violence was caused by criminals funded themselves primarily by breaking prohibition laws. If violence was caused by prohibition, Utah would have been the most violent state in the nation for most of its history, since prohibition was the law in most of Utah for most of its history. It still is the law in parts of Utah.

View on HN

Utah is a somewhat oddball case to cite as evidence around prohibition. They are 60+% Mormon, with a strong religious directive not to drink.

Right, and my point was that it was the people that were responsible for the violence, not prohibition.

After all, marijuana was technically subject to prohibition until quite recently, and yet the very lucrative pot market was not marred by violence.

Theres been plenty of violence due to marijuana prohibition! Never mind all the human misery from incarseration.

> Black market for pot growing in CA at the expense of the legalized market.

The amount of regulation pretty much guaranteed a "market failure" for legal pot.

Almost like that was the intended outcome...

Left leaning people want more government regulation and then expect pot legalization with no regulations. Reality doesn't quite work this way.

One of the arguments was that it would being in all sorts of tax dollars that could be used for great things. Tax Dollars=more expensive pot. So from this perspective, it worked as intended, even though many of the supports may not have actually thought it through.

You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that the cost of complying with regulations is higher than the overhead of costs that come with running an illegal drug manufacturing/selling operation.

Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations.

"You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that the cost of complying with regulations is higher than the overhead of costs that come with running an illegal drug manufacturing/selling operation."

The proof is the cost of legal weed, which is sometimes double the cost of the black market prices, due to regulations and taxes.

"Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations."

Safer? Maybe. Cheaper? Hardly. You have provided zero proof and your arguments just don't make a lot of sense.

The proof is the cost of legal weed, which is sometimes double the cost of the black market prices, due to regulations and taxes.

No, the cost of legal weed that is actually 100% what it claims to be is double the cost of black market stuff that might be (or based on police reports and various studies, almost certainly is) adulterated with various contaminants, including lawn grass, actual weeds, and trace amounts of other drugs sold by the dealer or his supplier.

It's like complaining that organic beef is twice the price of grain-finished hormone-treated beef. No duh. You have to pay extra for quality and the proof of quality.

Left leaning people want more government regulation and then expect pot legalization with no regulations. Reality doesn't quite work this way.

No, left-leaning people wanted more government regulation--and expected pot legalization with regulations. Which is what they got. But a lot of places, primarily right-leaning, chose to simply continue banning pot stores and deliveries within their jurisdictions.

Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing.

"Which is what they got. But a lot of places, primarily right-leaning, chose to simply continue banning pot stores and deliveries within their jurisdictions."

Yeah, well, this isn't what we're talking about. Left-leaning people wanted pot legalized and regulated and didn't seem to grasp that this means an increase in prices.

"Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing."

As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.

The black market in CA, as per your linked article, is with regards to growing, NOT retail sales. And that's because of bad regulations pushing growers to illicit activity.

Left-leaning people wanted pot legalized and regulated and didn't seem to grasp that this means an increase in prices.

Left-leaning people grasped that this meant increased prices...Pot shops do quite well in liberal areas even though they're more expensive than the corner dealer.

As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.

It has everything to do with right-leaning areas since the black market is thriving in the many parts of red CA that still prohibit marijuana sales. The black market (for sales to end-customers) isn't doing as well as it used to in left-leaning areas, though the black market for suppliers is still doing well for the suppliers that haven't yet been caught.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com