The Government Caused New York's Legal Pot 'Disaster'
The state has thousands of unauthorized shops but fewer than 200 licensed marijuana sellers.

As of early May, more than three years after New York legalized recreational marijuana, just 119 licensed dispensaries were serving that market in the entire state. Unauthorized pot shops outnumbered legal outlets by 20 to 1, according to The New York Times, with more than 2,000 operating in New York City alone. The state had less than one licensed pot store per 100,000 residents—in contrast with about six in Massachusetts, 10 in Maine, 11 in Colorado, 19 in Oregon, and 48 in New Mexico.
Legislators and regulators could have avoided this "disaster," as New York Gov. Kathy Hochul recently called it, had they learned from the mistakes of other states that have struggled to displace the black market. Yet New York politicians somehow did not anticipate what would happen after people could legally use marijuana but could not obtain it from legal sources.
Legislators did not allow home cultivation, and they initially did not allow medical dispensaries to serve recreational consumers. New York created a complicated, costly, and sluggish licensing process that prioritized "equity" and "diversity" above efficiency. The state imposed burdensome fees, taxes, and regulations that made it difficult for legal dispensaries to compete with the unlicensed stores that sprang up to fill the supply gap.
New York did not let medical dispensaries enter the market until last December. Even then, it charged companies $20 million for the privilege of operating up to three outlets.
New businesses faced fees up to $300,000, and regulators gave priority to retail applicants who were deemed disadvantaged, including people with marijuana conviction records and their relatives. Those preferences provoked lawsuits that further delayed the licensing process, and they blocked applicants who might have been better equipped to run a successful business.
Despite these problems, Hochul remains proud of New York's "social equity" program. But she has ordered a bureaucratic overhaul to speed up retail license approvals and has voiced support for cutting the state's heavy marijuana taxes, which currently include a three-tiered wholesale tax based on THC content as well as a 13 percent retail tax.
Legislators should keep in mind that licensed shops are competing with a black market where the tax rate is zero. New York also should reexamine the onerous regulations that make legal weed more expensive and less accessible.
Although Hochul has promised to "shut down illicit operators," any such crackdown is apt to inflict the sort of harm that legalization was supposed to ameliorate, punishing entrepreneurs for filling the yawning gap left by the state's misguided policies and administrative incompetence. Nor is enforcement likely to succeed, given the abysmal track record of the war on weed—a crusade that legislators supposedly ended three years ago.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "New York's Predictable Legal Pot 'Disaster'."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The citizens of New York want this and are happy to have it. Who are we to decide it is not right for them. Are you Anti-democracy?
I just live elsewhere.
Equity and diversity strikes again.
That inane criticism is often directed at libertarians. The answer is that expressing disapproval of the behavior of others is not the same as calling for that behavior to be prohibited. No, leftists do not understand that distinction.
^THIS +100000000000000.
Leftists intrinsically believe that their opinions should have the force of law by default. They cannot comprehend someone who does not think like that.
H.L. Mencken — 'Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.'
Have you seen my bong, Mr Jones?
We are happy in the sense that we like the fact that our police and prosecutors focus on more serious crime, giving New York City the third lowest homicide rate among large cities in the US. It is nice to live in a large city where it is safe to walk basically everywhere.
That doesn't excuse the botched market, though. To be fair this crazy attempt to manipulate things preceded Hochul becoming Governor.
Your city isn’t safe. Your prosecutors free violent criminals and prosecute anyone who uses force to defend themselves.
I know some Asian women still in fear of going out. Afraid someone is going to smack them in head. While that isn't as trendy anymore, the fear still lingers. I know people that are in fear of being pushed in the tracks when taking the subway. Homeless people attacking people is still a concern.
Despite low homicide rates, people are still in fear. Telling victims or the public we have third lowest homicide rate sounds tone deaf.
NYC doesn’t have low crime rates. Much data is ignored or manipulated. You have a prosecutor that lets violent criminals run wild.
You just accused NYPD of lying about homicides. There is absolutely no evidence for that.
Bullshit. Compare our homicide rate to every other large US city.
That's a bold claim (that NYC has the "third lowest homicide rate among large cities in the US) so I decided to check it. Based on the latest FBI statistics, NYC comes in 38th out of the largest 100 cities in the US. That's a long way from "third".
But in fairness, you did say "large" without defining that term. So lets start stripping out what might be "medium" cities.
- NYC comes in 12th out of the largest 50 (by which standard Tampa and Cleveland are no longer "large").
- NYC comes in 7th out of the largest 25 (and cities such as Detroit, Memphis and Baltimore are no longer "large").
- NYC comes in 6th out of 15 (excluding cities such as San Francisco).
- NYC doesn't come in 3rd until you limit the list to a mere 10 cities across the entire US. So your claim isn't a blatant lie but it isn't entirely truthful either.
Here are the largest 24 cities as of the 2020 census. #25 is Las Vegas, but as they have an unusual police department that serves much of the suburban area, it would be quite a job to calculate the denominator. The data are from 2023 which are newer than the FBI statistics. The rate is per 100,000 population.
city homicides population rate rate/NYCrate
New York City 391 8,804,190 4.44 1.00
Los Angeles 327 3,898,747 8.39 1.89
Chicago 617 2,746,388 22.47 5.06
Houston 348 2,304,580 15.10 3.40
Phoenix 200 1,608,139 12.44 2.80
Philadelphia 410 1,603,797 25.56 5.76
San Antonio 165 1,434,625 11.50 2.59
San Diego 60 1,386,932 4.33 0.97
Dallas 246 1,304,379 18.86 4.25
San Jose 36 1,013,240 3.55 0.80
Austin 73 961,855 7.59 1.71
Jacksonville 158 949,611 16.64 3.75
Fort Worth 88 918,915 9.58 2.16
Columbus 148 905,748 16.34 3.68
Charlotte 95 874,579 10.86 2.45
San Francisco 55 873,965 6.29 1.42
Indianapolis 219 887,642 24.67 5.56
Seattle 64 737,015 8.68 1.96
Denver 77 715,522 10.76 2.42
Washington 272 689,545 39.45 8.88
Nashville 109 689,447 15.81 3.56
Oklahoma City 75 681,054 11.01 2.48
El Paso 38 678,815 5.60 1.26
Portland 73 652,503 11.19 2.52
As of 2022, NYC was fourth, not third, but El Paso had a horrible %increase in homicides in 2023.
I knew that Philadelphia and Chicago were dangerous, but I wasn't expecting Indianapolis to be in their league.
Also remarkable is that NYC hasn't annexed any land since 1898, but that it still has much lower homicide rates than Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Nashville, and Indianapolis, which have annexed most if not all of their low crime suburbs. NYC would look even better were it to annex much of Westchester and Nassau Counties.
It is a big challenge for the right wing nutjobs that the three lowest homicide rates are in deep blue states, and that far from being a dangerous crime infested hell, San Francisco has the fifth lowest homicide rate.
It is also a big challenge to the anti-gun extremists that El Paso, Austin, and Fort Worth have low homicide rates despite Texas's total lack of gun control laws. Gun control opponents will argue that it is BECAUSE of the total lack of gun control laws. Having looked at a lot of data like this, I don't see much of a relationship. Gun control laws seem to reduce suicides rather than homicides.
These data are from a few months ago when I compiled them from the police agencies' own reports, and/or media reports of such reports. Therefore they are more current than the FBI stats which typically lag by a year. However, these numbers sometimes change before being finalized as investigations sometimes reclassify accidents or suicides as homicides, or vice versa. But the number of such reclassifications is never very large.
I was neither lying nor misleading. The low homicide rate in New York City is a modern day miracle. In 1990 the rate was 30.66.
I think this probably goes a lot deeper than just on-the-face fees & taxes.
The, "You can't jail someone for being 'poor' activists" brought about the lazy theft-livings (Commie-System) in-which wasting away other people's labor/money became faultless. Taking without earning (criminal) became publicly accepted as just a happy accident.
I'd guess the general public doesn't want to feel they're stuck subsidizing lazy 'stoners' all day.
No. It isn't justice to jail responsibly 'poor' but in the same respect it isn't justice to excuse taking without earning just because someone identifies as being 'poor'.
It wasn't really so much the 'pot' legislation as it is the 'welfare' legislation.
"“You can’t jail someone for being ‘poor’ "
That is in fact a Constitutional protection if you haven't been convicted but are merely awaiting trial. It is in the Eighth Amendment.
Point is: Jailing someone for spending more than they're willing to *earn* isn't jailing them for just being 'poor'. It's jailing them for taking money they didn't find the need to *earn*.
And no; Your 8th Amendment claim that jailing someone for not being responsible for their own spending habits isn't an act of cruel and unusual punishment. It's about as clear-of ensuring justice as it gets. If you're going to borrow & spend - you'll be held responsible for it down the road.
The Eighth Amendment means what it says. Sorry it triggers you.
You seem not to care about due process. The Excessive Bail clause is about people who haven't been convicted of a crime. You seem to want to jail people for being poor. I guess you are at least better than Donald Trump, who wanted to execute innocent people.
The conviction *is* taking money and not *earning* it.
I’m sure your kind are works very hard to remove that protection, along with the rest of the bill of rights. Which you want to replace with the ten pillars of Marxism.
The ten pillars of Marxism:
1. Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
2. A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
3. Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
5. Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
6. Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
7. Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
8. Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
9. Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country.
10. Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in its Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.
Notice how much this resembles the democrat platform.
So you want to abolish free schools and return us to child labor. Got it.
LOL. Wow……….. I find it funny you seem to think that paying for others labors (teaching) and just working in general is such a de-stained train of thought.
I'm just curious; who do you think is going to provide anything at all if everyone thought like you did? The natural process of bug reproduction will feed the world?
There have been public schools in what became the US since 1635. If parents had to pay the entire cost, which seems to be your wet dream, no poor child will have an education. They won't be employable and they will steal from you in order to survive.
“they will steal from you in order to survive”
They do that NOW. More and more all the time.
Funny how that works huh. You don’t work and you are ‘poor’.
It’s so funny listening to leftards preach like ‘poor’ is some inalienable disease or something. And you skipped my question; If everyone has the 'poor' mental-disability who's going to do the teaching? 'Guns'?
Public schooling on a state level began in 1790, when Pennsylvania became the first state to require free education. This service was extended only to poor families, assuming that wealthy people could afford to pay for their own education. New York followed suit in 1805.
The role of the federal government didn’t exist until In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson included education policy in his vision of a “Great Society.”
"could not obtain it from legal sources."
None of the licensed shops are legal sources. Marijuana remains a Schedule I Controlled Substance. That itself is stupid, but like many other stupid laws it is still the law.
I was placed head of line to open a pot store because I was arrested for dealing pot. Now they arrest me for having a pot store which will put me at the head of the line for opening a pot store.
Sounds like a Cheech and Chong skit.
In all fairness, I don't think they are arresting the store owners, but they are confiscating the goods they purchased and then brag about the dollar value of what was confiscated to show how well they are cracking down.
Democrats wonder why they are losing votes.
I don't know anyone who cares about the pot shops other than potheads. I know a LOT of people who care passionately about congestion pricing and almost all think it was a bad idea -- and that Hochul will bring it back after the election.
The drug war will never end as long as there are people and agencies feeding at that teat.
>>Unauthorized pot shops outnumbered legal outlets by 20 to 1
forever easier to just have a guy ...
Shop owners were the guy. But since the city has been cracking down, they are the guy again.
Really.
Shops getting shut down are moving back to delivery as it was before the shops open.
The delivery services in big cities are great. They also offer just about anything you might want.
Don't know how or why I should care. Too local.
For many years the chant was "legalize, tax, and regulate". Marijuana advocates got what they asked for.
New York created a complicated, costly, and sluggish licensing process that prioritized "equity" and "diversity" above efficiency. The state imposed burdensome fees, taxes, and regulations that made it difficult for legal dispensaries to compete with the unlicensed stores that sprang up to fill the supply gap.
I mean, what did you expect? Aren't you proud of the fact that you're giving gay black female immigrants a job? Aren't you proud of the fact that your legalized industry is being taxed and regulated to help the less fortunate?
I mean, make up your mind. Do you want this garbage or not?
Burdensome fees, taxes, and regulations result in black markets. We saw this in the 1920s during prohibition, when alcohol was almost completely banned. Organized crime had its greatest success then.
Just wait until Trump imposes his 100% tariffs. The Mexican cartels will be able to give up their fentanyl trade and trade instead in ordinary goods. Maybe that is a good thing.
No no no Charlie. Remember, this is to help the poor and disenfranchised.
Or, should we not make that a priority?
Wow! Someone managed to do worse than California! Are you sure they didn't muck it up on purpose? It would be difficult to come up with a worse system than California's without trying.