The End of a Weed Paradise
D.C. is destroying its thriving cannabis industry with bureaucracy and red tape.
HD DownloadDiana Alvarez's son always wanted to go to college. After seeing how expensive it was to send him to college, she started working in a smoke shop to support her family. A month later, she bought the store and began offering cannabis to her clients to help pay for her son's tuition. The Lit City Smoke Shop was then born.
Based in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of Washington, D.C., Lit City is part of the District's thriving gifting industry. Nine years ago, the city passed Initiative 71, making it legal to possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use. The law also created a loophole allowing stores to "gift" their customers small amounts of weed as long as they also buy another item, often at an exorbitant price, such as an 11-word motivational speech for $60 or a $95 Spiderman sticker.
"Four years later, my son did graduate from Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts," Diana happily points out. She's a member of the I-71 Committee, which advocates on behalf of gifting stores throughout the city.*
Any store can get into the business of gifting weed—no license required— making D.C. home to one of the most vibrant cannabis markets in the country. Gifting shops also happen to be majority black- and Latino-owned.
Since Congress has authority over D.C.'s local affairs, gifting is a way for the city to circumvent a federal rule that prevents it from legalizing the sale of recreational weed, as 21 states have done since 2012.
Ironically, this system functions better than most regulated cannabis markets because, other than the gifting gimmick, weed is treated pretty much like any other good that consumers can just walk into a store and buy.
Meanwhile, in states like California, recreational marijuana is so heavily regulated that sellers are struggling to turn a profit and many consumers would rather buy on the black market because prices are so high.
So what's the D.C. government doing with this successful model for recreational weed?
Trying to shut it down.
Medical cannabis is legal in D.C., but up until recently, the district had an onerous regulatory system that capped the number of dispensaries that were allowed to open. Now, it's cracking down on gifting stores.
A new bill signed by the mayor in January will impose $10,000 fines on any store found gifting and $20,000 if they do it again. These stores can also have their business licenses revoked. The bill will also empower D.C. to fine commercial landlords who rent space to gifting shops.
Although the new law will lift the cap on the number of dispensaries allowed in the district, to obtain a medical license store owners will still face significant red tape. For one thing, applicants will have to prove to the newly created Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Administration that there's enough consumer demand for marijuana in a particular neighborhood before they can open their doors.
The new bill also grants the agency the discretion to reinstate a cap after one year.
Gifting shops may apply for one of the new licenses, but doing so means taking a big risk. According to the new bill, if their applications are denied, they'll be ordered to shut down within 30 days.
Unlike with gifting shops, anyone who wants to buy from a medical dispensary has to register in a government database, which could create problems for the D.C. area's 200,000 federal employees.
Federal law technically prohibits medical marijuana users from buying a gun or living in federally assisted public housing, though since the passage of I-71, the D.C. Housing Authority hasn't evicted anyone on these grounds.
There's a danger that D.C. will become more like California, where the illicit market for weed is now twice as large as the legal one. Licensing regimes can also be discriminatory, whether intentionally or not: Washington State has granted 558 recreational cannabis licenses, and four percent went to black applicants.
In the end, gifting store owners would rather be left alone than have to jump through hoops to be allowed to stay open. "I have employees that have families to feed. I have to pay rent. I don't want to have to go through all of that. I want to be able to still serve the entire community as I've been serving them until now," says Diana.
Produced and edited by Justin Zuckerman; additional graphics by Regan Taylor; sound mixing by Ian Keyser.
Photo credits: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom
*UPDATE: This article has been edited to include a mention of the I-71 Committee.
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
Those darn Republicans - blocking weed sales again
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works cs-02 roughly 30 hours each week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK
Bill by Phil Mendelson [D]
What about open borders and ass sex?
-Reason Editorial Board
You can still gift those things
Reason doesn’t believe in open borders. They believe in one open border. The southern border of the USA. I haven’t seen an article about the need to abolish the northern border of the USA.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Why can't MJ be gifted from food trucks?
Simpsons did it. mob ran numbers & weed out of Mike's Slices truck
Is there anything we can't learn from The Simpsons? Except for that whole Apu thing. That was just wrong.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,300 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Lit City is part of the District's thriving gifting industry. Nine years ago, the city passed Initiative 71, making it legal to possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use. The law also created a loophole allowing stores to "gift" their customers small amounts of weed as long as they also buy another item, often at an exorbitant price, such as an 11-word motivational speech for $60 or a $95 Spiderman sticker.
If you were a libertarian, and you supported this scheme because WEED! and... anything we do to sneak in legalization is an unvarnished good, then you're a complete fucking dupe.
I have the same issue with "medical" marijuana.
For fuck's sake, we all know not every 19 year old has glaucoma and a bad back. And it isn't a "prescription" unless the doctor tells you when to take it and for how long.
If you're going to stop making it illegal, stop making it fucking illegal. Done. Stop pretending. Nothing good comes of it.
Government, and democrats in particular, never ever give up power. They only loosen restrictions on something if they’re adding other, more onerous restrictions. Plus taxes and fees.
Black market weed is still homogeneously better.
What the State permits it can deny. What it gives it can take away. Seems I've heard of something called inalienable rights which would mean the State has no business in any of this.
But practically speaking, pretty much around the world, the way you get rights is one permission at a time. The more things are permitted, the more widely the idea gets around that everything should be permitted.
This was always about the taxes. You know that right?
Government was jealous of the black market and decided to wet their beak. Which also gave them control. This is a twofer for democrat types.
Evidence says otherwise. Medical marijuana made it more acceptable, paving the way for recreational marijuana.
How is that evidence of anything?
This is simply me griping. I find it annoying. Honestly, I'm a grouchy pants curmudgeon, and would rather simple things be simple, that's all.
Whether or not "medical" marijuana had any effect doesn't matter to the fact that I find it ridiculous to have to pretend something when everyone, everywhere, knows it is just pretending.
DC did decide to make it legal in their city. Then the feds stepped in and over-ruled. So they came up with a work-around.
Tell me why this is bad for libertarians.
That's why. You again fell for the left-of-center politician making eyes at you and telling you they "just want to legalize it, maaan."
That knife sticking out of your back is still a knife sticking out of your back, even if Tom Cotton didn't thrust it in there.
Got it. Any time libertarian and democratic party policy overlap, you reject libertarianism. Yes. I'm the fool.
Knife sticking out? Tom Cotton? So many wrong assumptions...
Trying to shut it down? That means it's been operating. Isn't it better to have freedom for even a few minutes than never? And for hours better than minutes? Days better than hours? Centuries better than years?
Everything is quantitative.
And as predicted by Reason and true Libertarians, it has transformed DC into a crime free utopia, free of human suffering, mass incarceration, and racism! /sarc
Gee, allowing a legal work-around for one drug didn't magically fix all the problems created by the "war" on the rest of the drugs. Who would have guessed that?
Enough snark. It was a small and incremental step away from the drug war. It achieved some small and incremental reductions in drug-related crime and did in fact reduce some small amount of human suffering by letting people (like those in the article above) earn a living. It's not a panacea - but you haven't yet shown that it harmed anyone.
If you’re justifying ending the drug war with utilitarian principles, you’re a progressive, not a libertarian.
I don’t have to show anything. I’m just ridiculing the fake libertarians.
Yawn. Libertarians accusing other libertarians of heterodoxy.
What's wrong with being a utilitarian libertarian, anyway?
Everybody's a utilitarian, or heartless.
Because liberty and utilitarianism are in conflict. You have to choose one or the other.
Furthermore, even if you fool yourself and believe they are not in conflict, if you take a utilitarian stance, you'll lose every argument with a progressive, because they will be able to demonstrate on every single point that your utilitarian arguments are wrong, and they have the academics to back it up.
“you’ll lose every argument with a progressive, because they will be able to demonstrate on every single point that your utilitarian arguments are wrong, and they have the academics to back it up.”
Am I misreading this? You are admitting that progressives are correct and have superior arguments? Do you think progressive policies are the best approach to government from a utilitarian perspective? (Real question here. I'm not trying to be inflammatory or accusatory.)
Having read many articles and books on the topic of the drug war it seems obvious that academic and utilitarian arguments strongly back the libertarian position for anyone that cares to research it.
I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong", there are tradeoffs. For example, if your highest value were reducing inequality, then socialism would have the highest utility and would be preferable to libertarianism because socialism really does reduce inequality, it simply does so by making everybody dirt poor.
But more fundamentally, even if you agree on values, whether you are "correct" or not doesn't make any difference because you don't decide correctness, "recognized experts" do. And those people are not libertarians.
What an amazing coincidence that your view of the utility of drug legalization coincides with those of progressive academics!
But, in fact, the "legalization" they advocate and they have studied is not a libertarian-style legalization, it is a "legalization" within the context of a social welfare state and large government interventions.
Let's see.
You defined libertarianism.
You defined right and wrong as not existing.
You defined who decides correctness.
You defined my my view of the utility of drug legalization.
You defined the the drug policy studied and the context for researchers of the articles and books I read.
Our realities don't overlap, but I enjoyed the debate nonetheless.
I most certainly did.
I'm not "defining" anything. I am stating a fact: there is no absolute, objective "right" and "wrong" policy because that depends on moral values. So you need to define your moral values before you engage in policy arguments.
I am not "defining" correctness, I am reminding you who decides correctness in our society.
I have no idea what your view of the utility of drug legalization is. That's the problem: you assume that everybody has the same utility function as you.
I didn't "define" what you read, I stated a fact: by definition, the articles and books you read were written by intellectuals and academics.
You don't live in reality. You live in progressive fantasy land.
And we didn't have a debate. Having a debate with someone requires that the other person can at least distinguish definitions, premises, facts, and inferences. You are obviously incapable of that.
You're hilarious. I hope it's intentional. You had me going.
You’re a fool, Quicktown.
Real libertarians favor prohibition.
Real libertarians don't make progressive arguments against prohibition.
Real libertarians say "legalizing drugs is a matter of individual liberty; I don't care whether it increases crime or leads to more drug deaths".
I disagree, but I understand your point. So granting your definition of libertarianism: Can't a real libertarian try to convince others why their ideas are superior and should be enacted without limiting themselves to the individual liberty argument?
If you don't agree on a set of values, how are you going to define utility?
I mean, even when it comes to drug legalization, the libertarian position is that you should be free to take drugs and you should face the consequences yourself and at most have to rely on charity.
The progressive position on drug legalization is that you should be free to take drugs, but that drug use should be heavily taxed in order to discourage it, and that there should be huge government support and healthcare systems to deal with the consequences of drug use.
When an actual libertarian and a progressive talk about "drug legalization", they don't even talk about the same thing.
I see. So libertarians don't care what effects our policies have on humanity. Why did we become libertarians, then?
That is correct. Real libertarians don't think in terms of collectivist concepts like "effect on humanity", they think in terms of individual liberties, personal responsibility, and personal consequences.
Who is this "we" you are speaking of? I don't think you are a libertarian.
You might be finally reaching the point where you leave libertarianism, as I did, because of the very question you ask.
Any that’s why you now favor progressive policies like drug legalization combined with a huge social welfare state. That’s for admitting it, right?
Nope.
once again the proper wheels are not being greased.
The “gifting” shops had no reason to grease palms to stay in business, so of course the bureaucracy has to get involved to keep the cash flowing.
RE racial breakdown of Washington State pot shop ownership:
The article says blacks own about 4% of WA pot shops.
The 2020 census says about 3.6% of the WA population is black.
That looks pretty equitable if one cares about such things.
Um, you know Washington D.C. and Washington state are different places, right?
"Nine years ago, the city passed Initiative 71, making it legal to possess up to two ounces of marijuana for personal use."
But where do you get your 2 ounces legally?
Diana Alvarez's son always wanted to go to college. After seeing how expensive it was to send him to college, she started working in a smoke shop to support her family. A month later, she bought the store and began offering cannabis to her clients to help pay for her son's tuition. The Lit City Smoke Shop was then born.
How heartwarming. That's just like how Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán sold drugs to make a better life for his eleven children!
Any store can get into the business of gifting weed—no license required— making D.C. home to one of the most vibrant cannabis markets in the country. Gifting shops also happen to be majority black- and Latino-owned.
Mass legal distribution of drugs among blacks and Hispanics is sure to make them into more productive segments of society.