Basic Cannabis Economics – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

Basic cannabis economics. Wherever one finds freezer craze, behind it lies a lack of understanding of basic cannabis economics.

For example, public health stakeholders are calling for THC limits. As if adults who choose high-THC cannabis strains would simply shift their demand to lower-THC strains once public health tells them what their preferences should be.

Most, if not all, government employees lack an understanding of basic economics and, by extension, basic cannabis economics.

So let’s clear up some misunderstandings. First, let’s start with a definition by the economist Thomas Sowell.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all who want it. The first lesson in politics is to ignore the first lesson in economics.”

Politicians who don’t understand basic cannabis economics

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau legalized cannabis in 2018, three years after promising to do so.

From the outset we have set out what Justin Trudeau meant by legalization (ie corporatization) and what he should do instead (keep cannabis out of the penal code and rely on our common law/traditions to regulate).

But Justin Trudeau doesn’t understand basic economics, including basic cannabis economics.

Trust fund premier expects federal budgets to balance. That economies are growing “from the heart out,” which must be a double-talk when it comes to pumping up the credit card.

The former drama teacher also believes inflation isn’t a problem for “families” he’s said to be dear to his heart.

Justin Trudeau is a prime example of a politician who prioritizes “compassion” and what sounds good over what works. He’s the type of politician who ignores scarcity.

But the problem isn’t just in Canada.

Connecticut, for example, is trying unsuccessfully to enforce THC limits. Retailers are not allowed to sell buds with a THC content higher than 30%; Concentrates are capped at 60%.

But convenience stores, gas stations, and CBD-only stores can circumvent these limitations by focusing on delta-8 THC.

Obviously, a politician with an understanding of basic cannabis economics would declare THC limits a failure. They would find another way to convince people to use lower THC cannabis. Perhaps by trying a method based on consent rather than coercion.

But Democratic MP Mike D’Agostino sees the problem in the fact that the rules are not strict enough. As he told the house

We are simply trying to ensure that all products sold in Connecticut with a significant amount of THC are sold in our regulated marketplace through pharmacies, where there are labeling requirements, per pack requirements, and per container requirements.

And all Fidel Castro attempted was to create a “new socialist man” who would put aside all personal interests, goals and desires to devote his life to building a communist society.

It may seem far-fetched to compare THC limits to the systematic dismantling of the market economy as a utopian ideal, but the principles are the same.

Politicians who don’t understand the basics of cannabis economics will destroy the cannabis industry before it can thrive.

Look at Canada’s cannabis sector. Even large manufacturers struggle to keep up with the government’s criminal excise structure.

Politicians who don’t understand the basic economics of cannabis are the biggest threat to cannabis legalization. The world can now look to Canada and conclude, “I guess legalizing cannabis isn’t working.”

Basic cannabis economics in the food market

Economics studies cause and effect and shows what happens when you do certain things in certain ways. In basic cannabis economics, we should be concerned with the incentives that create certain decisions rather than the stated goals.

In other words, consequences are more important than intentions.

Canada’s public health officials say THC limits and other restrictions are justified because children are attracted to cannabis edibles.

It is easy to proclaim good intentions and blame others for the problems. But if you understand the basic economics of cannabis, you can see how Health Canada’s strict edible rules have led to counterproductive, even disastrous, consequences.

The Canadian government has not changed consumer demand. People still want strong edibles. The consequences were

• a) continued revenue streams for “illegal” food producers and;
• b) Legal producers focus on strong cannabis extracts.

Health Canada recognizes the consequences of their actions but refuses to take responsibility because they do not understand the fundamental economics of cannabis.

They released a statement denouncing “copycat” cannabis edibles, particularly because they appeal to children. (This ignores the fact that refined sugar in general is terrible for children, or that British Columbia teenagers are experimenting with “safe” opioids. A problem far more serious than illegal cannabis edibles.)

And instead of acknowledging that THC limits are counterproductive, they turn to potent extracts, which they consider “edibles.”

Health Canada could argue that child-resistant packaging and THC limits are necessary “for the kids.” At the same time, however, they complain that legalization and “private, for-profit” pharmacies have resulted in more hospitalizations and emergency room visits for children who accidentally consumed cannabis edibles.

So what is it?

Basic cannabis economics

Many people think that economics is about money, finance, and banking. And it does. But at its core, economics, including basic cannabis economics, is about the logic of action.

Imagine a cleanup crew arriving after a cannabis festival. Maybe the garbage cans are piled high. Cannabis roaches and lost paraphernalia litter the floor. The clean-up crew faces an economic problem.

Where to start They must dedicate their scarce resources (cleaning materials and equipment) to alternative uses. Do they start with the toilets or when emptying the garbage cans?

Maybe a discarded joint will start a small brush fire. It would be advisable for the clean-up crew to start there.

Human life consists of efficiently allocating time and resources. This is an inescapable fact of reality.

In this example, no money has changed hands and there is no market in the traditional sense. But the clean-up crew’s decisions are inevitably economic.

There are no solutions. There are only compromises.

Yes, public health can limit THC and require plain child-resistant packaging. But this compromise tempts others to create high-THC edibles in packaging that’s pleasing to the eye.

Why does edible cannabis need to be attractive to children as a copycat? Shouldn’t adults enjoy the marketing of their favorite chips, candy and chocolate brands?

Making decisions is at the heart of economics. To understand the basic economics of cannabis, one must understand that you cannot change people’s preferences by influencing supply.

They only frustrate consumers and encourage black markets. It’s not that public health is trying to discourage the public from consuming tide pods or inhaling aerosols.

In fact, if they tackled these issues as doggedly as they did with cannabis, they would campaign to ban these commodities.

This would create a black market (or at least incentivize alternatives, such as the popularity of synthetic cannabis in places with strict cannabis prohibitions).

Public health is a joke

Public health leaders wonder why some people don’t listen to them.

Imagine you go to the doctor and he gives you financial advice. It may be sound financial advice, but it is not their job to give it. Not in this environment.

Likewise, I expect medical professionals to take a cautious and conservative approach to cannabis edibles high in THC. As “public health” they have every reason to provide prudent evidence and opinions.

However, enforcing these opinions through state law goes a step too far. It ignores basic cannabis economics and reduces single adults to an infantile state.

It doesn’t work either.