Marijuana

The Perils of Central Pot Planning in Washington

|

Jacob Sullum

Yesterday the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB), having received almost 3,000 applications from would-be marijuana growers, unanimously voted to reduce the number of licenses per applicant and the maximum size of farms. Initially the board said it would license up to three grow operations per applicant; now each must make do with one (at most). The board also cut the square footage allowed for each level of cultivation license by 30 percent: from 2,000 to 1,400 square feet of plant canopy for Tier 1, from 10,000 to 7,000 for Tier 2, and from 30,000 to 21,000 for Tier 3. The reductions were necessary, the WSLCB explains, because otherwise the combined square footage of qualified applicants would far exceed the board's cap on total production, which it has set at 2 million square feet. But that cap is based on the amount of marijuana needed to supply just 25 percent of the anticipated market, which means the board is deliberately engineering a shortage.

How come? "In its enforcement guidelines issued August 29, 2013," the WSLCB notes, "the Department of Justice required states to ensure a tightly regulated and controlled market to prevent diversion of product to other states, sales to minors and other concerns." Regulators worry that if they let legal growers produce enough pot to meet demand, the total supply will be excessive once you take into account the black market and the quasi-legal "collective gardens" that supply medical marijuana to patients (although it seems likely that the legislature will phase out the latter by the middle of next year). That extra pot could end up in the hands of "minors" (a group that in this case includes 18-to-20-year-old adults) or consumers in other states, thereby implicating two of the "enforcement priorities" that the Justice Department has said could trigger federal intervention.

But all this central planning is fraught with uncertainty. The demand estimate on which the board is relying, for instance, is based on calculations by RAND Corporation researchers who used state-level data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) combined with their own online survey of cannabis consumers, which aimed to figure out how much marijuana each consumer buys over the course of a year. Adjusting the NSDUH data to account for under-reporting, RAND's Beau Kilmer and his colleagues put total consumption in 2013 at 135 to 225 metric tons, with a median estimate of 175. That number was more than twice as big as an estimate by the Washington Office of Financial Management, which said total marijuana consumption would be about 85 metric tons in 2013. Kilmer et al. say the difference "is largely driven by our use of more recent data."

While the RAND study seems considerably more rigorous than the state's earlier projection, it still relies on a bunch of debatable assumptions, and its estimate covers a wide range. Furthermore, the estimate is for consumption in 2013, so it does not take into account the likely increase in consumption after state-licensed pot shops start opening later this year. That increase is apt to include more-frequent use by current consumers as well as purchases by new consumers and by visitors from other states. To get a sense of how wildly off government projections of demand can be, witness the delight of Colorado officials upon finding that their haul from marijuana taxes in the next fiscal year will be around $100 million, more than twice as high as projected before voters approved legalization in 2012.

And recall that the WSLCB is expecting state-licensed stores to capture no more than 25 percent of the market during their first year of operation, a number that could turn out to be far from the mark in either direction, depending on variables such as the after-tax price of legal pot and the fate of medical marijuana dispensaries. Additional uncertainty comes from estimating how much square footage is needed to produce a given amount of pot. As Soviet officials discovered on a much larger scale, this coordination of supply and demand is a pretty complicated problem when you insist upon arranging it through government diktat.

In short, the only thing we know for sure about the 2-million-square-foot ceiling is that it will have to be changed at some point. But for now, the WSLCB is sticking to it, which means cannabis cultivators must conform to tighter limits than they were expecting.

NEXT: Winklevoss Twins Launch Bitcoin Price Tracker

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Our official policy is that we want the legal market to fail so that we can blame the producers and override the public will to re-ban the substance in question”.

  2. As Soviet officials discovered on a much larger scale, this coordination of supply and demand is a pretty complicated problem when you insist upon arranging it through government diktat.

    That’s only because they had the wrong people in charge!

    1. Pot. Men.

      I can’t believe this went all day with no one else saying that.

  3. But that cap is based on the amount of marijuana needed to supply just 25 percent of the anticipated market, which means the board is deliberately engineering a shortage.

    To the central planner, shortages are a feature, not a bug. Because shortages mean CONTROL. Shortages mean that you can favor cronies with supply. Shortages mean the proles are begging for more. They like shortages.

    1. Shortages will prove that legal pot can’t eliminate the black market, which is a good reason to overturn the legal pot law.

      1. Legalization is not getting overturned. First of all, the politicians don’t have the power. Secondly, if they restrict/regulate to the point of absurdity, someone will most likely put up another ballot initiative to reverse that (at least to a certain degree). Thirdly, people have already gotten used to the fact that they don’t have to worry about having some pot on them or in their house, and they really like that (I met my guy at Trader Joe’s for a bag, then immediately went shopping with the bag in my pocket; it reeked, and yet was 100% legal, no worries).

        I’m sure we will see constant bullshit with the regulation, sales, and more, but there’s pretty much no way it’s getting re-illegalized (not that that’s a word).

        1. Episiarch masks the odor of marijuana on his person by not showering ever.

          1. The dirty hippies tried that. The dogs don’t respond the the odor, but the command of the guy holding the leash.

          2. Golden showers count, Hugh! Jerk!

  4. OT: HuffPo prints VW labor leader’s threats as fact, provides no alternative viewpoint, commenters have collective orgasm while imagining Southern workers suffering.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..20585.html

    1. “”If co-determination isn’t guaranteed in the first place, we as workers will hardly be able to vote in favor” of building another plant in the right-to-work South, Osterloh added.”

      OK, who was it who failed to guarantee co-determination, but insisted that before allowing worker councils VW would have to go through an NLRB-supervised election with the goal of designating some dubious union bosses with the power to represent the workers, conflicting with the German model?

      Oh, yes, federal legislation.

      But sure, it’s the VW workers who are at fault here for not trusting the union bosses their employers tried to foist upon them.

    2. right, because there is no more favored constituency among the liberati than Southerners, especially the blue collar types.

    3. Everytime one of the major left-wing commentariats wishes doom and famine on the South, an angel gets a DDM4.

  5. Sounds like they might have a stake in the black market.

  6. In Washington, pot get high on YOU.

  7. It will be interesting to see what happens with the feds as pot from the states which have legalized will definitely be making it to other states is pretty good quantities.

    1. That’s when the feds start seizing bank accounts and other assets.

  8. witness the delight of Colorado officials upon finding that their haul from marijuana taxes in the next fiscal year will be around $100 million

    Which is why legal weed is coming to your State soon. I am thinking that only a couple of years of 9 figure revenues will break down even my very conservative State. Considering the money States make on alcohol, it really is amazing that they have kept their mitts off of that sweet, sweet lucre as long as they have.

    1. I’m from a pretty conservative state too (SC). I know the state would love the revenue but I don’t see it being legalized anytime soon. Maybe when all these retirees start dying off.

      1. I’m in NC where the state runs alcohol, gambling, and tobacco. But somehow, pot is just too much to bear.

        1. Perhaps if pot was more addicting…

          Didn’t NC have an mj tax 80 years ago?

    2. The state is getting plenty of money from prohibition through forfeiture, federal grants, etc. Plus it gets something it values even more than money- power.

    3. Except now they’re apparently proposing that the tax money be put right back into “youth drug use prevention”, i.e. D.A.R.E.

  9. “That extra pot could end up in the hands of “minors” (a group that in this case includes 18-to-20-year-old adults) or consumers in other states,”

    Is there some magical force that’s prevents pot from getting to minors and other states unless it is “extra”?

    1. Does anyone really believe that the law keeps pot out of the hands of anyone who wants it?

      1. we have those laws mandating the drinking age at 21 and no one under that age…uh, wait. Never mind. Needz moar lawz.

        1. clearly the solution is to limit producers to selling only 25% of demand. then those underage kids will never be able to get it!

  10. NSDUH sounds like a made-up organization from Dilbert, but no, this is real life.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.