The New Economics of Pot.

[Dinner]

California Public Radio has a pretty good piece on how the push to legalize pot in California has brought about huge changes in the industry with prices collapsing and quality getting much better. It's interesting stuff.

Part 1:
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201004150850/a

Part 2:
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201004160850/a

And now there is even a new website where people with the medical marijuana license can legally buy and sell put on line skipping the whole retail mark up. It's a strange new world with a Craig's List of pot.

http://budtrader.com/

[rah]

In the morning paper

L.A.'s Hotel Normandie could be America's first marijuana-friendly hotel


Marijuana smokers in Los Angeles may be getting a hotel of their own.

The Hotel Normandie, a historic building built in the 1920s as an elegant residence, may be positioning itself to be reborn as a "pot-tel," according to the Los Angeles Times.

John Evangelista, a real estate investor, bought it in January and called on medical marijuana activist Dennis Peron to pursue the possibility.

"(Peron) has a certain following, a certain know-how, a certain energy and kind of vision," Evangelista told the newspaper.

The brick building, which is in the heart of Koreatown, will host pot smokers Tuesday for an annual celebration of marijuana. April 20 has evolved as a day of pot smoking for advocates of marijuana legalization.

Peron told the Los Angeles Times that converting the 106-room hotel into America's first pot-friendly hotel is "a logical step."

"It's a big city. And they needed me down here," he told the paper.

Evangelista faces several legal and financial hurdles. He's mired in a lawsuit against the former owner regarding ownership share, the report says.

The hotel is also about $200,000 behind in loan payments and it's unclear who's going to pay for the projected $500,000 needed for renovating it, it says.

Peron and his friends plan to sell $420, two-day packages.

- Roger Yu

[C0ckney]

interesting stuff. thanks for posting oerdin

if weed was going out at $10,000 a kilo a few years ago then i shudder to think what the retail price must've been.

[dannubis]

It's better to blow than to succeed !

[Dinner]

I honestly don't smoke but I do see legalization as a way to 1) increase the state's tax haul by taking underground activities and bringing them into the light 2) Lower the cost of law enforcement & the prison population and 3) add a new way for rural areas to have a cash crop which helps rural economies. Add in the fact that the coffee houses/smoke shops will be new locally owned businesses and I'm thinking it's an all around win.

[Dinner]

I don't agree 100% with this video (I think their projected numbers are too rosie) but even if we assume the real income from MJ taxes are half what the advocates said that's still more then an extra $3 billion per year in this state with about $3.5 billion in decreased law enforcement costs. Or at the very least those officers could be redirected to stopping violent crime.

[Felch]

I wish we were seeing this on the East Coast. Good news for you guys though.

[Japher]

Legalizing pot will not only help revitalize an otherwise struggling economy and create positive revenues for tobaco and other companies wishing to enter the industry but it will also create support economies. Not just bars and headshops will see an increase in business but travel and tourisim will become a larger business in the state(s) that adopt the policy/law. It is a good thing for... wait.... what? Did you hear that?

[monolith94]

I wish we were seeing this on the East Coast. Good news for you guys though.

We'll get there, eventually. Already, Massachusetts has decriminalized small amounts of marijuana possession.

[HalfLotus]

Legalizing ain't gonna happen any time soon. At best we'll see slightly more liberal medical allowances.

Law enforcement and incarceration are too popular among the establishment to be chopping off one their larger appendages.

[Dinner]

Another interesting thing is that pot makes up 75% of the volume of the drugs smuggled into the country by the Mexican drug cartels. Knocking that business out from under the Mexican mob just has to help Mexico get a handle on its organized crime problem while at the same time resulting in a lot of money staying in the US instead of going over seas.

[Dinner]

Legalizing ain't gonna happen any time soon. At best we'll see slightly more liberal medical allowances.

Law enforcement and incarceration are too popular among the establishment to be chopping off one their larger appendages.

Legalization is going to be on the ballot in California this November and the polls are pretty close. Almost exactly 50-50. I think it is going to come down to voter turn out. If lots of conservatives show up then it will likely get shot down but if lots of liberals show up then it will likely pass.

[-Jrabbit]

Dave's not here, man.

[rah]

The main problem is that it stays in your system too long. What type of testing can they do to keep people from smoking and driving?

[Ecofarm]

We cannot establish intoxication via urine or breath. We would either need to establish a THC/blood level that designates "intoxicated" and write a law allowing blood-tests on traffic suspicion, or do like 3 states have and simply allow driving on it (currently with prescription).

[rah]

There will be a lot of resistance to using blood tests for routine traffic stops. For those involved in accidents yeah.

[Ecofarm]

I don't see other solutions.

1. Take a blood test (based on suspicion) or you have just refused a sobriety test, and suffer the legal consequences.

2. Let people drive on it.

There's no way to establish intoxication via urine or breath, AFAIK. Also note, we've no idea what sort of THC:blood ratio would mean intoxicated at the moment; that might not be easy to figure out.


3. Perhaps we just go with field sobriety tests (walking a line, touching nose...), though I think we'd need something else for stuff like commercial flights, heavy equipment, etc.

[Wezil]

There will be a lot of resistance to using blood tests for routine traffic stops. For those involved in accidents yeah.

I suspect it will require the same grounds as a blood test for alcohol (more accurate than the blow in test).

[rah]

I doubt they will ever allow blood test on ROUTINE traffic stops.

[Wezil]

Take it up with Ben.

[rah]

Now that was totally uncalled for.

[MikeH]

Fairly obvious if someone appears stoned, which would give you grounds for an arrest.

Or offer them a cookie.

[MikeH]

And we already have this problem now with pot illegal, legalizing doesn't change it.

[rah]

Not really. Any amount of pot in your system is currently illegal, there is no level to be determined. People that smoke pot every day, can be quite stoned but may not display the outward characteristics that you would expect. (except for the cookie aspect )

I've heard many law enforcement types state that the problems with testing has been quite an important component of why it hasn't already been made legal.

[MikeH]

Ah ok. Here possession and distribution is illegal, having it in your bloodstream isn't.

[Ming]

Fairly obvious if someone appears stoned, which would give you grounds for an arrest.

Or offer them a cookie.

Somebody who is tired could appear stoned... somebody with a flu or cold could appear stoned. While both do hamper your driving ability, neither is illegal.

But I do like the cookie test

[MikeH]

What's the problem with driving stoned anyway? Driving too slowly and carefully?!

[AAHZ]

Somebody who is tired could appear stoned... somebody with a flu or cold could appear stoned. While both do hamper your driving ability, neither is illegal.

But I do like the cookie test

What would DanQ think of this post Ming, you are clearly out of bounds here because this is a family friendly site we do not talk about evil things such as drugs so READ RESPOND OR BE RESTRICTIVE!

...

oops wrong time period

[Arrian]

The Driving issue has always been my worry.

I don't see other solutions.

1. Take a blood test (based on suspicion) or you have just refused a sobriety test, and suffer the legal consequences.

2. Let people drive on it.

There's no way to establish intoxication via urine or breath, AFAIK. Also note, we've no idea what sort of THC:blood ratio would mean intoxicated at the moment; that might not be easy to figure out.


3. Perhaps we just go with field sobriety tests (walking a line, touching nose...), though I think we'd need something else for stuff like commercial flights, heavy equipment, etc.

1. People will fight this tooth and nail - not just pro-pot people either.

2. Unacceptable.

3. I don't think that's precise or objective enough.

Hence the problem.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

What's the problem with driving stoned anyway? Driving too slowly and carefully?!

Your depth perception and reaction time are all messed up. Sure, you don't get the whole "I'm awesome, let's race" thing that booze can give you, but you're still significantly impaired.

-Arrian