next Comments go here.

1/28, 11:32a Gee, I keep forgetting that only the corporations who create toxic cocktails for all of us to take, that only THEY, can make greedy buttload gobs of money. I'm over this about making money. Good for anyone who makes money to pay their bills and take care of their family and friends. And if you have some left over, just like the drug cartels in Mexico, get some new history books into those school libraries and feed the poor and build a church or whatever they need. Hemp Hemp Hooray

Maybe the Vatican owns your Mortgage.... All Roads Still Lead to Rome

Cannabem liberemus,

mary mary @AZ4NORML Tucson, AZ www.az4norml.org

That’s one way to look at it: Big Pharma gets to get rich off patients by overcharging them for toxic medicines, so why shouldn’t we get rich off overcharging patients for a non-toxic herb?

I’d kind of prefer that all medical care was moved out of the realm of for-profit enterprise, like fire and police protection. You can make a good living as a cop or firefighter, but you have to fight all the crimes and fires, and you don’t profit if there are more crimes and fires. Likewise, illness and disability are “fires” that threaten the whole of our citizenry; sickness doesn’t discriminate and not helping the disabled deprives us of talent.

The beauty of marijuana is that it is a house plant that heals. Let’s not turn it into another overpriced bottle of pills.

I think there’s a large degree of difference between someone growing their own, selling some to friends to help pay bills, and multi-million dollar enterprises.

And again, I love multi-million dollar enterprise, so long as it is truly an equal playing field and everyone gets a fair chance to play. When everyone is allowed to grow, buy, and sell marijuana, I will be the first to praise the marijuana millionaires.

Russ Belville

1/28, 1:48p I agree with you Russ....it's always about where a person's heart is....are they a giver or a taker. Our Michigan MM Law was writin the way it is to discourage profit-driven caretakers. But cannabis will never become reasonable in price until we end prohibition. Only then will it join the competitive world of legitimate business.

Rev.Steven B.Thompson,Executive Director Michigan NORML 6215 Smeltzer Rd. Benzonia,MI 49616 (231) 882-4496 www.minorml.org

1/28, 3:38p Doesn't I-28 require records be kept of income/expenses, and audited regularly, as well as inspected? I think part of why "green medicine" is so expensive at "buyers' clubs" in California is because producers grow under the medical marijuana law protections, then, at harvest, tell shop buyers, "Either pay black market prices, or we'll just sell it on the black market". No oversight of producers like I-28.

...Clifford

1/28, 6:12p Anthony Johnson wrote: I28 sets up a supply system for non-profits, unlike California. Also, producers trying to sell at black market prices can be undercut by compassionate Oregonians who will be able to produce more medicine than under the status quo. > On Jan 28, 2010 3:39 PM, "Clifford Spencer" > wrote: -----------------------------------------------------------------------> Doesn't I-28 require records be kept of income/expenses, and audited regularly, as well as inspected?

1/28, 4:29p Russ F.Y.I., Mark up can never exceed 100% because the formula for calculating mark up is cost divided by sale subtracted from 100. Since cost can't be lower than zero, markup can never exceed 100. Once a true markup is known, it can easily be used to calculate gross profit with this formula, sale price times markup= gross profit. Below is the actual markup for the prices given.

Wholesale Retail Markup [(Retail-Wholesale) / Wholesale] Obama Kush $ 10.71 $ 37.50 250% the actual markup is 71.44% multiplying this number by sales price = $26.79 equals gross profit.. To check the math, sales minus cost also equals gross profit, 37.50 minus 10.71=26.79 OG Skywalker $ 10.49 $ 37.77 260% the actual markup is 72.33% Train Wreck $ 5.50 $ 20.09 265% the actual markup is 63.48%

Mark Ocnorml.org

1/28/2010 8:00 PM Speaking from experience, I wouldn't trust economic figures from the cops. They state gross revenues as if they were profits without deducting the costs. Without knowing a collective's costs, it's impossible to pass judgement on markups.

More to the point, who buys a gram of pot for $37.50 as claimed by the cops in this report? LA dispensaries sell at prices of $45 - 75 per eighth, which works out to $15 - 25 gram tops. If this club is really trying to sell grams at $37.50, they're not going to have many customers. Brett Stone may be right that the cops confused gram prices with eighth prices.

- Dale G. Calif.

1/28/2010 11:45 PM I do NOT agree that 'the importing CA prices argument has been adequately rebuffed through the drafting of this initiative...'

There is nothing in the initiative that ensures that prices will not be inflated, and it is quite likely that those that are willing to invest the $1000 per year into the licensing fee are going to want to turn a decent profit on production. In fact, with everyone I have spoken with about I-28 that has any intent to try to become a producer, that is exactly their intent. In most "potential" producer's minds - there is no reason that they cannot sell to dispensaries at prices comparable to the black market currently.

At even 1/2 that price, dispensaries in Oregon would still nearly have to charge CA prices in order to maintain the minimum requirements set forth in I-28 (even though general, it requires security measures, licensing fees, employee taxes, non-profit compliance among other things - all obvious "overhead" in the ears of this bookkeeper...). Anthony himself quoted me an approximate figure of $200-400 per ounce as a realistic expectation of pricing when I discussed the initiative with him early this month (aka CA prices, also known as Oregon black market prices).

I find myself supportive of the idea of dispensaries; yet at the same time, I find myself appalled because this initiative will prevent many from entering the market due to the inability to acquire not-for-profit status, which can be a very complex and costly pursuit for many who would otherwise do wonderful in a dispensary/producer environment. Because of these additional obstacles, the "market" will be limited in terms of dispensaries (even in the most basic economic terms - any restriction will limit the available market, which has the potential to create supply shock, which increases prices - basic economics). From this angle, I believe that it is quite likely that Oregon prices will be even higher than California, if those who end up in the role of producers or dispensaries want them that high.

And so far, everything I have heard on the topic of the initiative tells me that $200-400 per ounce is just the "starting price," but the market will determine where it goes from there. My economics understanding tells me that "from there," it can only go UP.

Personally, I find the requirement to be "not-for-profit" is a deterrent in supporting this measure, as it only serves to reduce the availability of the medicine. And yet, the purpose of the initiative is supposed to be to make the medicine more readily available to those that need it. I understand that there are a number of agencies that are already not-for-profit and involved with medical marijuana reform who would likely adapt quickly to the passage of this initiative with the grand opening of a dispensary or two - to those agencies, this probably doesn't seem restrictive. But to me, this would be like letting the electric company sets its own prices based on supply and demand - everyone needs electricity! There are regulatory agencies that keep these prices in check, in that instance however.

This dispensary initiative has nothing of the sort that ensures that patients won't pay super-inflated prices. And most patients are unwilling to trust any organization, even an MMJ friendly not-for-profit, to represent their individual interests, especially where money is concerned. Russ commented on it just in the last few days - even NORML has the continuing accusation to be full of "rich lawyers" that don't really want it legalized - they just want to get rich.

You don't have to agree with these perspectives - but it is worth noting that these are the views that represent many that will make or break a vote on this issue. These things need CLEARLY ADDRESSED. So far, they have been swept under the carpet and ignored - not addressed.

In my humble opinion, Jennifer Alexander

1/29/2010 4:42 AM Here's a neat 20-minute podcast from NPR and Jeff Miron about why prices will come down, but not as much as you might think: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/01/podcast_an_economist_gets_ston.html --

John Masterson Montana NORML - Working to reform marijuana laws in Montana. Web: http://montananorml.org Blog: http://blog.montananorml.org Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Montana-NORML/178715305628 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mtnorml

1/29/2010 7:08 AM Can someone please explain to me the need to be Non-Profit to dispense? And the growers for the Non-Profit dispensaries are they growing for free? Are Herb Shops and Pharmacies Non-Profit? Why does should Cannabis be treated so differently than an other medicinal treatment available? These are questions from Patients/Growers alike whom I work with everyday in clinic.

Thank you, Kim Broadhead

1/29/2010 8:39 AM I personally do not believe that it is necessary in this election cycle to make a choice at this juncture whether to support I-28 (which I do)or go for legalization, apparently through one of Paul and Madeline's filed initiatives (which I worked on and also support). It will take a flood of signature gatherers to qualify either of the two measures by the deadline. Should one of thoses measures make the ballot along with I-28 such a choice could be made, but I do not see any serious conflict between the two even if both pass. I-28 amends OMMA law and both of the two legalization measures leave OMMA law alone. If both models pass, then the two systems are set up in some degree of opposition to each other with the consumer base determining which model works best. If a dispensary system becomes superfilouos because of the other sales regime then that's how supply and demand works.

I do not find that "costly and complex" accurately describe the process of obtaining non-profit status, especially in Oregon or even at the Fed level. While some prefer an attorney handle the latter, the fee for that is not usually very onerous.

my $.02, Laird

1/29/2010 9:42 AM > When I reflect on the costs I am reminded of how we got into the whole state > of prohibition in the first place....Capitalism.

That hypothesis doesn't stand up in the cold light of history. It was under 19th century laissez-faire capitalism that Americans last enjoyed freedom of choice in drugs. As late as 1887, a conservative California Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance against opium use, arguing that that such laws were beyond the normal scope of government. It was conservatives who opposed the first anti-narcotics laws as unconstitutional infringements on freedom of commerce, while progressive advocates of activist government supported them. It was liberal progressives (including Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandies) on the Supreme Court who upheld the constitutionality of the Harrison Act over conservative dissenters in the 5-4 Doremus decision. And it was New Deal advocates of expanded government who passed the Marihuana Tax Ac, by using a prohibitory tax that violated conservative constitutional doctrine on the limited federal powers over commerce.

Now that the drug war is a century old, positions have evolved. Right-wing conservatives now embrace prohibition as part of the status quo, while liberals are more inclined to question it. But the differences have nothing to do with capitalism. Otherwise, Lenin would never have supported alcohol prohibition.

- Dale Gieringer

1/29/2010 11:28 AM Brett, very good points about the dispensaries having to defend themselves. Indeed, those lawyer fees and such could be looked at as variable operating expenses that make a $360-$600 ounce defensible.

But really, it just further underscores the point that the dispensary system is beholden to black market economics and the only true solution is legalization, which, I’m happy to note, some dispensary owners have kicked in a lot of moolah to accomplish this year. I’d happily buy a $360 ounce if I knew 20% of it was going to marijuana reform orgs.

Russ Belville

1/29/2010 11:52 AM Dear advocates of price caps,

Please provide the language for how you would cap the price of medical cannabis.

Please provide examples from the history of economics of where price caps have worked? If they are a good idea why don't we have price caps on all sorts of things? Why not cap the price of milk at $1/gallon? Why not cap the price of a doctor visit at $25? Why not cap the price of gas at $1/gallon? Hell, why not cap the price of everything at $1/gallon - life would be nice and simple that way.

Price caps are an arbitrary human invention trying to defy the laws of economics.

I just think if you say medical marijuana must be $50/oz but don't create a supply system where that is possible you are just blowing smoke.

I don't mean to be facetious here. My limited understanding of economics is that we live in a sort of free market economy. Other than in extraordinary circumstances (and I can't think of any at the moment) price fixing just never works.

Price and quality are intertwined in complex ways. If you set the price of marijuana, then you will just lower the quality to meet that price. Maybe people will be able to sell untrimmed bud for $50/oz. but I doubt they will be able to sell hash for that. Hash is higher quality and probably will cost more. Some strains are better. Maybe they are harder to grow because they yield less. Maybe growers won't be able to provide the highest quality products at the price you set. Maybe economic conditions will require the price to be adjusted periodically. Who does that? Hmm. The government. I just don't think it would work.

I also think that opposing an initiative that creates a regulated supply system, maintains every positive aspect of the current system, assists poor patients, and allows research because the price MIGHT be high is missing the forest for the bush.

Thanks, John Sajo Voter Power

1/29/2010 12:18 PM Steve writes: But in my opinion, Madeline has raised serious and reasonable questions about how we will insure that what happened in Los Angeles and other cities in California and Colorado does not happen in Oregon.

JS replies: I don't like some aspects of what is going on in California. I don't like bad people who never lifted a finger to reform the laws making a quick buck off patients. But saying that California is so terrible we don't want to be like that is adopting a bad argument from our opponents. California patients have access. California patients have choice. No California patient has to shop at dispensaries. The fact that the vast majority do patronize dispensaries is proof that they are not as bad as they are portrayed. I never hear California patients (except Scott Imler) complaining about dispensaries and arguing that California should go back to prohibiting them.

We need dispensaries because without them many patients go without medicine. The question is how do we work to make the medicine safe, high quality and affordable. How do we make everyone accountable? I 28 is the best answer to these questions.

John Sajo, Voter Power

1/29/2010 12:39 PM Madeline writes: Importing an already unaffordable, crumbling model from California seems like a recipe for disaster.

JS responds: We studied California carefully and tried to adopt the positive aspects and find alternative policies to prevent the negative. I 28 was carefully drafted and has the following differences from California:

1) Oregon already has a mandatory patient registration card system.

2) Oregon will specifically license commercial producers. They will have clear uniform statewide rules to follow. California dispensaries are forced to buy gray market medicine because there is no legal commercial market.

3) I 28 creates a specific program to help low income patients. California has no such system.

4) I 28 creates statewide regulation by DHS OMMP that will be able to deal with most of the feared outcomes.

Madeline writes: In my opinion I28 was drafted by growers/caregivers and not with an affordable supply of medicine for patients in mind.

JS responds: I 28 was drafted with input from hundreds of people, most of them patients. All my posts today point out why your statement that I 28 was not drafted with an affordable supply in mind is completely untrue. We create the only government program in the country that will provide free medical cannabis to patients. Madeline, your alternative is to require growers to sell at a fixed price even if the laws of economics make it physically impossible.

Madeline writes: In Oregon we could do so much better. Patients are still losing their jobs, their child custody rights and more. Ten years later and medical marijuana still does not protect us adequately. Let's go for legalization and not commercialization!

JS responds: I am all for legalization. I have been working for legalization since before you were a prison guard. But how do we get there? You are chief petitioner of an initiative to commercialize marijuana so I don't understand what you mean by your last statement. Please explain. And unfortunately even legalization will not necessarily end all the problems you cite above. Patients losing their jobs may happen even after legalization.

Thank you for the discussion.

John Sajo, Voter Power

1/29/2010 9:16 PM Is "profit" a dirty word?

The entire reason people can charge $400/oz for a plant anybody can learn to grow is the illegality and over-regulation. If you, I, or Todd McCormick could just freely grow it & sell it, then we would become what's known as market forces. If I price mine at $400, and you grow a similar quality & sell it for $300, I'm going to get stuck with a large inventory. I come down to $175, Todd goes to $120... at some point, we can't go down any farther & still be able to afford to grow. I suspect that even Madeline wouldn't be put off by that price ;) . Complying with regulations, keeping grows small enough to comply with state law & stay off of the feds' radar, having a high barrier to entry for distributors, all serve to increase the price artificially. The same applies to any industry: health care, power, water, tv, hops for beer, etc.

I suspect that, if California takes the next step & legalizes, we'll see a re-arrangement, but we'll see something truly remarkable if the feds end the war on drugs: with no fear or risk, people will be free to shop openly for price and quality.

Dan F.

1/29/2010 11:38 PM The reason for the high product costs associated with California dispensary sales seems obvious to most posts here in DPFOR on the subject. However, I believe costs will remain high for two important reasons, and those reasons would be fairly apply to Oregon as well.

1. Demand for cannabis out-paces supply in a significant way. The shear number of dispensaries and the high prices collected in California can be seen as evidence that demand is high and will remain high (no pun intended). Demand right now seems constant, if somewhat insatiable. (And appears to remain insatiable in the current social/political climate.) Even the mere perception that supply is limited keeps pressure on demand and will continue to keep pressure on the demand for cannabis for some time. In my opinion. it would take a number of years using the current supply system in California to manage or even eke out just a small decrease in costs.

Canada cannabis street prices seem to range in the $200 - $300 for average quality, mostly because prohibition is not so pronounced, but still a significant factor. The demand in Canada remains high but availability of supply has lowered prices somewhat.

2. Dispensaries are subject to unreasonable regulation and control. The fact that dispensaries are still subject to closure/seizure by local and federal authorities is cause for major concern. However nessesary, regulation and control inevitably increases costs. Over regulation and control increases costs dramatically. A number of dispensaries will lose lots of money when thier dispensary is closed due to limits imposed by local regulations. It seems wise for them to hold funds for relocation, criminal defenses, investigations, taxes, lobbying efforts, and then things like insurance, security, thefts, and other losses.

According to the explaination by Christine McGarvin quoted from the Mail Tribune - "Under the initiative, each dispensary would have to pay a $2,000 license fee and a 10 percent tax on gross sales...and... Producers would have to pay a $1,000 license fee and the 10 percent tax." That adds up to over 20% of product costs not including costs for accounting, oversight and tax compliance. Taxes will play a major roll in Oregon in keeping costs high.

In doing brief research for non-profit dispensary model, $50. per ounce (not including taxes) was the low-end ballpark figure for a storefront dispensary, just as Jennifer suggested in her findings.

The costs associated with non-profit status, to me, were negligable when considering using a proper accounting system designed for retail outlets, a do-it-yourself structure with non-gratis board members.

The biggest costs for a store front dispensary would of course be the products. These costs would be a significant factor in the over costs. Has anyone out there done any analysis on production costs ?????? I realize the scales of economy in production have a profound influence on overall costs and would vary depending upon the model used.

If I recall Stormy Ray suggested that cannabis can be manufacture for $100/oz ... but I think that was non-gratis indoor production and would not play a significant part of a commerical enterprise (non-profit model) that produces significant supplies.

Doug H.