Maryjane economic curiosity

[flexagon]

Disclaimer: I'm not a pothead. But:

I'd really be curious to know how the marijuana supply industry has been reacting / will react to the decriminalization in Massachusetts this fall. It seems pretty obvious that demand will go up as the penalty for possession goes down. People who like marijuana will want to have some more often. People who are simply curious, and willing to risk a fine but not a criminal charge, will try it.

So, how is the supply chain shifting? Based on previous states' decriminalizations, do the suppliers have an idea of how much the demand will increase -- or, because the whole thing is on the down-low, do they not communicate enough to know that kind of thing? I don't think the penalties for dealing have been decreased, so how are they going to recruit more people for their sales organizations?

(Side note: I will be really pissed if the state legislature amends or overturns this one. It won 65/35 among state voters; that's an overwhelming majority. An attempt to overturn it would, in my mind, be a blatant refusal to represent the people of the state.)

Comments

[nahele-101.livejournal.com]

"legalize it...don't criminalize it..."

I don't smoke, but am all for taking pressure off jails and stopping throwing people in jail for smoking a plant. I hadn't heard about MA and this legislation. Please update me if they overturn it.

[soong.livejournal.com]

I've heard a theory that the law change helps users a lot but not dealers as much, due to the amount thresholds involved. Increased demand could drive up price until dealers get more bold or more numerous (so that each has a smaller stock to get caught with).

[flexagon]

Right. Way more numerous, each with a < 1oz stock, seems to be the safest answer. I just wonder if it will really work that way. Obviously at SOME point in the pipeline a larger batch has to be transported; until you hit the MA border the penalties may not vary much with size.

I'm curious, but in this case it's not like the industry leaders are going to speak out about their strategies, so I'll just have to remain unsatisfied. :-/

[niralth.livejournal.com]

Just a note on "An attempt to overturn it would, in my mind, be a blatant refusal to represent the people of the state."

The problem is, the state and federal governments, and courts, definitely have to "defy the will of the people" sometimes. Look at interracial marriage in the 1960s. The vast majority of voters disapproved, and many states still had laws against it, and it took a Supreme Court case to strike it down for good. That was all against the will of the people, but constitutionally correct.

It's on my mind now because of what's happening with Prop 8 in California. The voters of the state amended the state constitution to ban same sex marriage, but most of us are hoping that the court will strike that down. The will of the people be damned when it's a clear matter of civil rights.

All that said, I wonder if drugs can be considered a matter of civil rights. I'm all for lessening the penalties for marijuana use, personally, but I haven't thought and read enough about the issue to know if it's really a matter for the people to decide.

[flexagon]

I agree with you about the courts... but the legislature? I believe they are supposed to represent.