From the Outbox -- If Marijuana Were Legal and Taxed, Would A Large Percentage of People Grow Their Own?

You ask: "how many people will really want to pay commercial prices plus taxes when they can grow their own (thus knowing exactly what they are getting) for next to nothing?"

I answer: lots, even assuming a tax proportional to that on cigarettes. Growing one's own would almost certainly not be the preferred option for most tokers. It's a non-trivial process in terms of space, time (e.g., care and feeding), upkeep (e.g., plant food, avoiding fertilization), and encroachment (e.g., smell). Of course, it's an easier undertaking if one lives in an appropriate climate and can grow outdoors. But it's still nowhere near as easy and efficient as it would be for the Philip Morris of the green economy. Moreover, it seems likely that the product of Big Pot, at least at the high end, would be way better than the homegrown alternatives for a number of reasons. And it would sure be marketed as such.

I mean, maybe it's largely a cultural thing, but most smokers don't roll their own cigarettes even though I believe they could save a considerable amount of money doing so. Don't underestimate the combined forces of laziness and branding. And note that branding -- and regulated selling -- includes a number of substantive signals such as consistency, product data, and the opportunity to support a government cool enough to legalize it.

***

I'm no expert, but my impression is that growing kind bud isn't easy. Maybe pot plants thrive in most climates without much attention, but I think producing a good yield of potent buds requires significant attention and know-how. In today's circumstances, this is of course partially due to the need to avoid detection, but it's also due to the finicky procedures necessary to induce optimal THC production. This has two main implications. First, commercial growers likely could grow significantly better stuff. They'd have better machines, better methods, and better strains. I don't see why these things couldn't be kept proprietary. Second, people love convenience. Maybe you think they're often suckers for it, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is that many people would pay to avoid having to go through all of the hassle and initial investment of growing -- even people who know they'll be partaking regularly. People are lazy and shortsighted; DIYers are idiosyncratic to varying degrees. I mean, what percentage of people get most of their produce from gardens? What percentage of people even make their own coffee? I think the situation would basically be like homebrewing.

***

I agree that the tax revenue might not be that substantial. I suspect legal pot would be quite cheap in general, but companies might be able to charge a fair amount for designer strains, alternative active ingredient delivery mechanisms, and the like. Regardless, I'd like to get back to the issue of how prevalent homegrowing would be.

You raise some valid points, but I think you're overstating your case. Consider:

• Moichandising. It seems to me that there would be sizable market segments that would inhale the commercial offerings. Connoisseurs, tourists, first-timers, and "social smokers" come to mind. Connoisseurs would be curious about the latest strains being promoted by the various brands and headshops. Tourists and first-timers obviously would be unlikely to have homegrower connections. And by social smokers I mean the kinds of people who would primarily or exclusively partake in clubs and the like. I mean, just imagine what things would be like if pot were flat-out legal in California. Yeah, you'd have plenty of homegrowers, communes, and underground farmers' markets (green markets?). But you'd also have loads of commercialization.

• The "soft costs" of homegrowing. I've already mentioned the nontrivial time and effort I believe it would take to grow high-end product. Raising, cultivating, farming, gardening -- whatever you want to call it -- is work; it's something that people who are wealthy enough (and who generally have less free time) would not be keen on doing unless they enjoyed it. But I also think many people would psychologically and/or socially be deterred from becoming homegrowers. They may worry about being stigmatized, and even if that's too harsh a word, in the early stages of legalization, there would at least be a lot of skittishness. Lastly, there's the product itself. I don't see why you think corporations wouldn't be able to produce significantly better stuff. They have more resources, and pot appears to have a lot of potential for resource-intensive development. Companies could isolate which combinations of cannabinoids produce which effects and then engage in hybridization and/or genetic modification. They could also presumably enhance other qualities such as aroma, potency, and appearance. And they might be able to breed strains that would produce very efficient yields compared to what's out there. Now, of course, some of this technology would eventually be reverse-engineered or otherwise discovered. But a lot of it could be kept proprietary, and a lot of it simply requires a corporate amount of resources to take advantage of. Additionally, companies could let users know exactly what they're smoking (strain, THC content, cannabinoid profile, etc.) so they can figure out their preferences and take on less risk.
  

In sum, people are willing to shell out for convenience and consistency. We wouldn't be a nation of gardeners if the climate were cooperative and arable land were ubiquitous.