For some reason the state of Nevada underestimated the demand that would be generated by recreationally legal weed. Alcohol distributors appear to be at fault rather than it being an issue of cultivator supply. There are hundreds of growers with crops ready to go but due to an agreement with the state's alcohol distributors, for the first 18 months of legalization only they are allowed to transport weed from cultivation centers to stores. Since the law went into effect on July 1st the state has only received about half a dozen applications for a transport license.
Nevada officials have declared a state of emergency over marijuana: There's not enough of it.
Since recreational pot became legal two weeks ago, retail dispensaries have struggled to keep their shelves stocked and say they will soon run out if nothing is done to fix a broken supply chain.
"We didn't know the demand would be this intense," Al Fasano, cofounder of Las Vegas ReLeaf, said Tuesday. "All of a sudden you have like a thousand people at the door....We have to tell people we're limited in our products."
In declaring a state of emergency late last week, the state Department of Taxation warned that "this nascent industry could grind to a halt."
As bad as that would be for marijuana consumers and the pot shops, the state has another concern: tax revenue. A 10% tax on sales of recreational pot — along with a 15% tax on growers — is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars a year for schools and the state's general fund reserves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:16PM (2 children)
I guess we have somewhat different ideas on what is a state of emergency. Running out of weed for your store probably wouldn't even qualify. After all it could have been something serious like running out of cookie-dough or icecream. That would be a real emergency, after you run out of weed ... or so I have heard.
That said a lot of these things seem to be results of really poor planning. "We didn't know the demand would be this intense", really? Who would have thought people would line to buy legal weed? If only there was about a handful of states that already tried that we could have checked with for data.
Seems like some savvy alcohol distributors didn't like the competition and got a fix in with the legislatures. A rival "pleasure drug creator and distributor" will be in charge of delivering the competing drug? Geee .. who could have guess that could go wrong.
Oh the lovely taxdollars are missing? Did they spend them before they had them? In that case they would have know there was going to be millions of sweet sweet tax bucks arriving, which makes that other statement about them being caught by surprise for the demand even stranger.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:40PM
There are some nuances to the whole distribution thing.
Bear in mind that in most of the states that have gone this route, the alcohol enforcement arm is being given the supervisory responsibility, and the model of dismantling prohibition is how they're doing it. In these models, distributors often had a specific and important role - to the point of sometimes even banning things like producer-to-consumer sales without a distributor's involvement. It looks as if what Nevada did was to just perpetuate and extend that process, without realising the outcome of having the distributors being de facto gatekeepers.
Live and learn ...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:53PM
But this isn't really about a shortage of marijuana. It's about a shortfall in projected tax revenue. And that is a budding emergency.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:20PM (13 children)
People smoke less pot than they drink booze. A $40 eighth ounce of weed lasts me at least two months of nightly use for sleeping. I have spent easily north of $40 for a single night out at a fancy bar on just my drinks alone. The alcohol industry is not happy about legalization at all.
Quick story:
The other night I was getting ready for bed when an old friend called to tell me his sister had passed away and that he needed to talk to someone over a beer. I already smoked my new favorite mix I call Diesel Cookies, a 50/50 mix of sour diesel and girl scout cookies. Hits hard and peaks nicely so I can enjoy an hour of TV and then pass out. Anyway, I was able to walk over to the bar and we sat and drank. He must have drank six beers while I could barely drink two. In fact, I didn't even want to drink. I drank because I'm in a bar and I was thirsty from the weed. We were there for about three hours and I was still plenty high from just ONE nice hit.
That's another thing about weed, a nice cold drink has greater thirst quenching power. Instead of wanting to chug the beer, you sip it and it's much more satisfying. So you enjoy your beer at a slow pace without binging. Same with other drinks like water or even iced tea (I make my own fresh from green tea bags and fresh lemon.) You take small satisfying sips every once in awhile.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:25PM
> Instead of wanting to chug the beer, you sip it and it's much more satisfying. So you enjoy your beer at a slow pace without binging.
That could be good for the beer industry, or at least the small breweries, because then you're more likely to drink a higher quality more expensive product, than just tolerate the usual cheap piss.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:01PM (9 children)
Well, in my 20s I used to smoke upwards of 2OZ a week.
I stopped smoking so much when I started doing harder drugs (DMT, AMT, LSD, COKE, etc) and only used weed to take the edge off after a night of partying.
A night out could easily be 300-400 on booze, 500-800 in coke, and $30 in weed.
Having cleaned myself up, I'm now back to 3.5 will last me a week. I still prefer to pick it up from dealers because the quality is usually better. And dispensaries near me charge easily $30-40 MORE for a 3.5.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:21PM (3 children)
Buuuullllshittttt. 2 oz of weed is an insane amount. Did you have chronic emohezema? Did you just waste a shit ton of it? Were you smoking out 2-5 friends every time? Your story just reeks of unexplained bullshit.
But hey, that seems to be SN these days
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:31PM
2 oz a week isn't a stretch at all if you use less efficient forms like the joint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:14PM
I've smoked a QP in two days before... Obvously not all to the dome, but I don't smoke solo anyway, the only drug I use non-socially is nicotine. I used to smoke a quarter a day, everytime I see a friend, I roll up, they roll up, we smoke both blunts. If you have money and time, building a tolerance is not difficult at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @02:58PM
It's quite easy to smoke 2oz.
Wake up smoke a joint, take a shower, get out smoke another one, go to work, smoke a couple more in the morning, smoke few more in the afternoon. Keep that going, before you know it. You've blew thru a ton of weed. It's quite simple.
Add in a vape/bong and suddenly you notice you do SMOKE a lot of weed. My vape you could load easily 1.5G into it. And get 6-7 good tokes off it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:24PM
The weed I currently get from dispensaries in SoCal is way better than what I got on the street in the 1970s, with the exception of some Kona Gold a biker shared once. The price really hasn't inflated as much as everything else either. I only use about 1/3 oz per month for pain relief at bedtime, and I have no desire to get high during the rest of the day or go on to harder drugs. AAMOF, the weed replaced my prescription Fentanyl. It works better, costs less, doesn't leave me plastered all day, and isn't as habitual as Fentanyl.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:40PM
DMT is about the only drug on my to-do list. LSD/NBOMe isn't even that hard, but is fantastic. I can't get it anymore because I'm not cool and I don't want to order drugs with shitcoin and get DEA'D.
Shrooms are great because they can be grown easily but are harsher than LSD/NBOMe IMO.
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:11PM (2 children)
When I read stuff like this I'm only left wondering WTF is wrong with people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:13PM
It's called "Chasing the dragon".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:37PM
^ Exactly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:43PM (1 child)
Speak for yourself. I make alcoholic beverages, and I'm outright delighted with legalisation for a whole range of reasons, not least being economic. A less hidebound, more permissive society with an eye on health rather than incarceration suits me right down to the ground.
Nope, never smoked weed, and don't want to. Still think that it's a great trend.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:42PM
"the industry" isn't exactly determined by what some bartenders/barmaids think, or want. The collective industry sees pot as competition. That is a narrow minded view, but apparently, that is the view. There have been a number of articles in recent years, detailing how much money the alcohol industry has spent lobbying against legalization. Without that lobbying effort, legalization of pot would probably have happened considerably sooner.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
If the inefficiencies of regulated legal pot are preventing people from getting it, are they going to stop using?
Maybe we just witnessed the ultimate answer to the war on drugs: legalize, and watch demand crash the -intentionally rigged- market, sending lots of disgusted customers back home, considering quitting for lack any further means to find their fix.
Right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:16PM
Would you like a side of bible studies with that specious theorizing?
Legalization will actually HELP the drug problems we have. Black markets create illegal activity and create an aura of mystique and wonder. Lots of young people do things purely because it is counter culture and they are fed up with the status quo. Legalization puts drugs back in the proper context: chemicals which alter your mental and physical states. Your post could be satirical, hard to say, but the use of "their fix" is pretty dumb. Recreational users may fit under there, but half of those are also self-medicating to a degree. I would much prefer people use marijuana rather than alcohol, so where is the massive judgment regarding alcohol? Y'know, the drug that actually causes the most problems? Cigarettes too. Seriously, we legalized the most harmful drugs!! Well, barring meth and such.
LEGALIZE EVERYTHING! Put tax money into rehab / support programs, make it easy and less shameful for people to seek help!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:26PM (4 children)
Putting the alcohol industry in charge of supplying weed, basically their main competitor?
*facepalms*
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:32PM (1 child)
Our Las Vegas correspondent told us [soylentnews.org] what can go wrong.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday July 13 2017, @04:49PM
Haha, wow. Thanks for linking that; apparently I missed the article the first time around.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:29PM
The great state of Nevada is well-known for regulating gambling and sex work; are you intimating some manner of perversion of its august regulatory system [youtube.com] when it comes to the distribution of cannabis? I'm shocked [youtube.com], my good sir.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 13 2017, @11:52PM
Nevada isn't the only place like that. In Texas, the RailRoad commission regulates trucking. When you look behind the scenes, it's easy to figure out why trucks were restricted to 55 mph for all those years.
Wandering off topic - it's a damned shame that the railroads are so terribly mismanaged in the US. Trains can move freight at a small fraction of the expense of trucks, and trains are much less likely to be involved in a catastrophic accident. But, incompetent management is incapable of moving fresh produce (among other things) from Mexico and California fast enough to prevent spoilage. Trucks routinely make the run from Yuma, as far away as Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 4 or 5 days. Toronto and all major cities on the US east coast are all 3 day runs for team drivers, and/or a solo driver willing to work at it. Trains might get there sometime this summmer, if the rail car isn't simply misplaced somewhere.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 13 2017, @05:43PM (14 children)
I'm quite certain that there are organizations ready and willing to take up the slack. And the best part is that their customers don't have to worry about being caught, because they can say that they bought it legally even if they didn't.
That said, the real concern is for Frito-Lay, since this could put a dent in sales of chips, cheesy poofs, and other snack foods.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:10PM (13 children)
There's a sizable tax on such purchases, and penalties for those who don't pay the tax:
source [ilovegrowingmarijuana.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:20PM
Jesus fucking christ, I knew there had to be something else to their legalization game. Such a fascist state (beaten only by their neighbor New Mexico) wouldn't just legalize weed like that... So of course they place ridiculous requirements. Now they can claim moral superiority by legalization, yet STILL get to "bust some deadbeats" which will basically be every single MJ user around. $100 per gram? WTF?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday July 13 2017, @06:41PM (11 children)
More reefer madness era bullshit.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:36PM (8 children)
I'll put it this way: If that happens, it would be the first time pot had ever killed somebody.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday July 13 2017, @07:51PM
I wonder what happens in the common case of someone having cannabis and other drugs in their system (especially alcohol). Half a murder charge?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:53PM (3 children)
Not quite true.
Quite aside from drug-inspired bad decisions, it has been discovered that pot OD is actually a thing. I forget the exact symptom list, by hyperthermia features - and yes, it can kill.
Go check out emergency room information in states that have made the big leap - Washington has good data on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:07PM (1 child)
That sounds more like rare genetic conditions resulting in problems. You don't tell people to watch out for the Lobster cause not that many people are allergic to it. You don't regulate peanuts either.
This is the best I can find for your assertion and it basically says you're wrong, there is no such data about hyperthermia from MJ alone: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15563659609013773 [tandfonline.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:18PM
copy-paste of the abstract:
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 14 2017, @12:04AM
The most likely way to die from a pot overdose, is to be standing next to a fork lift driven by some fool high on pot, and a bale of Mary Jane falls off the forklift, crushing you to death. That might be considered an "overdose". FFS, people have been smoking this stuff for forever, and no one has been able to document a case of someone dying of cannabis overdose. If it were happening, the DEA would trot the story out as part of their propaganda effort.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Friday July 14 2017, @01:27AM (2 children)
Not true - plenty of people die as a result of pot use, if not directly by the pot itself.
Most alcohol-related deaths are not people literally dying from drinking too much alcohol (though that does of course happen). Mostly, they are due to the things that people do when under the influence of alcohol - drive cars, operate heavy machinery, play with guns, get into fights etc.
Similarly, people do dumb things when under the influence of drugs. Where I live (Victoria, Australia), 41% of people killed in road accidents over the past 5 years had (non-alcohol) drugs in their system - 18% of those were affected by THC.
Links:
https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/tac-campaigns/drug-driving [vic.gov.au]
http://www.caradvice.com.au/407556/drugs-responsible-for-more-victorian-road-fatalities-than-alcohol-for-third-year-running/ [caradvice.com.au] (Drug-drivers have now overtaken drink-drivers in Australia. this one mostly talks about Ice, which is what Meth is called in Australia. It notes that drug-drivers are significantly over-represented in random testing and fatalities compared to their proportion across society)
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday July 14 2017, @01:29AM (1 child)
Clarification - 18% of all road deaths in Victoria over the past 5 years involved people with THC in their system. My earlier post implied it was 18% of 41% (i.e. 7.38%).
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday July 14 2017, @12:42PM
Define "in their system"... THC stays in the system a long time, that doesn't necessarily mean they were under the influence at the time..
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Thursday July 13 2017, @10:55PM (1 child)
When is the same standard going to apply to tobacco and alcohol?
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @12:18AM
Is involuntary manslaughter [wikipedia.org] close enough? How about plain manslaughter? [people.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by richtopia on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:05PM
I don't know Nevada's laws, but in Oregon you are allowed four plants for personal consumption. A potential solution to a distribution problem is to localize the production at the source of consumption.
(Score: 2) by pgc on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:11PM
There was absolutely no money whatsoever involved in making that broken arrangement.
No sirey..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 13 2017, @08:54PM (3 children)
Now I don't know about the rest of Nevada, but in the 1960's and 70's when I grew up in Las Vegas, the school system didn't seem poor to me. Every single classroom had audio visual equipment. Phonograph. Film and/or Filmstrip projector. Tape recorder. Sometimes these items would be shared between two classrooms. But EVERY and I mean EVERY classroom always had a television set. This was true as I moved from grade to grade. Every few years when we would move, it was true at the new school, just like the old school.
I just assumed it was this way everywhere. Why would a kid think otherwise?
In 1975 I moved to a midwest state. Suddenly I realized there was only one of each piece of equipment for the whole school!
And I discovered other things that I had not even knew existed: pot holes in roads! dirt and gravel roads! snow. tornadoes.
Maybe things have changed in the decades since. Or maybe Las Vegas was atypical of Nevada. But I don't remember the schools seeming hard up for money.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 13 2017, @09:02PM
It could be a different type of problem. In Oregon if the state runs too large of a surplus it is forced by law to return it to the citizens.
I wonder how some people would feel about that. If you still feel weed should be outlawed, you effectively would be receiving drug money. Typically, money does change attitudes.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday July 14 2017, @12:41AM (1 child)
Funny, it blew my mind when I first went to a Vegas/real school (lived there for a while as a kid). I can tell you for how many kids were in that school at one time alone they had sufficient funding. The one-projector situation was the norm for where I went otherwise.
I feel like if anything it's the parasitic nature of politicians doing what it do again. Manipulating budgets so that they get more while cost of living increases, thus making it so new budgets need to be added or increased to bring things to baseline. Also my experience and someone's note about budget surplus tell me there is overspending going on if losing the weed tax would make things complicated.
I do know in Arizona at least, they ended up with a $200 million surplus or so for schools a few years ago. Somehow the resulting budget in the next fiscal year (am I saying this right?) was less as a result. Which I still struggle to grasp the cause/effect of.
Those nebobs. I hate them. I do hate them.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 14 2017, @01:27AM
It could be straightforward: in the first year, more money was budgeted than was needed. In the second year, the budget was reduced so it would be closer to the expected need. Instead of being reserved for schools, money could be used for other purposes.