When Guliani ran for mayor of New York in 1993 he mocked that the OTB, a government agency, was “the only bookie joint in New York that loses money.”
The current crisis hitting the Dutch health ministry indicates that its agency is “the only ‘joint’ joint in Netherlands that loses money.”
The governmental marijuana is less potent and more expensive than what can be had on the street.
The number of economic factors at play here is quite interesting.
To be fair the government is not providing the same good as the private dealers. It is technically providing a different good since its product is legal, is sold in a different venue, requires a prescription, and has fixed quality requirements. The government also has a smaller market because it is restricted to provide for medical use only.
Various factors could cause governmental marijuana to be cheaper. Being legal should remove the cost of law enforcement evasion. However, in this case the black market is openly tolerated so it may not have much effect. The government could also be directly subsidizing producers with tax funds. Perhaps because of the bad incentives that might arise that was not the choice made. Instead medical insurance has a part to play in this.
Governmental marijuana is covered by insurance, which causes the third party payer problem to arise. This should tend to raise prices. However since there is a glut it’s not obvious this is an important factor either.
Perhaps, as usual, the government just isn’t providing the product the consumer wants or needs. After all it can always bail itself out with taxpayer money if the consumer fails to cooperate.
{ 3 comments }
The Marijuana Party in Canada is just about the most libertarian of all in the country.
The governing Liberals, on the other hand, have been exposed as having ties to the pot-growing Hells Angels. Their legislative reaction?
“Let’s decriminalize marijuana. Not legalize it, just decriminalize it.”
That way, their “bud-dies” in organized crime can continue to make their profit while the government can “get in on the action” too by handing out fines for individual possession of this “decriminalized” substance.
The term decriminalization and legalization are identical. One emphasizes the fact that drug abuse is a moral vice and not a crime. True decriminalization of a drug would mean that any adult who wanted to could buy or sell drugs. That does not mean the drug could not be regulated on other concerns such as driver impairment or mental incompetence.
Semantics has never been sacrosanct to politicians.
All I know is, on tonight’s episode of “Monday Report with Rick Mercer” they just had 327-year-old Pierre Burton teaching the audience the finer points of rolling a doobie. I nearly pi**ed myself.
Who says the CBC doesn’t produce anything worthwhile? Double-Plus ha ha.
Comments on this entry are closed.