Memories of the 28th Century

Here in Massachusetts the Great and General Court passed and the governor signed into law a law that will permit three “resort-casinos” in the Commonwealth. I don’t think much of casino gambling at all. I regard casinos as businesses designed to take money from individuals and fill the pockets of the casino owners, much like insurance companies. I doubt that I will ever visit any of those casinos, if they will be built, but the small, limited number of casinos annoys me. In effect the State government gave three organizations the privilege to make a large amount of money, while the rest of the population does not have that privilege. That strikes me as unfair. Fairness and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution say that everyone should have the same privileges.

I realize that one of the justifications for the gross unfairness is that Massachusetts could only support a limited number of casinos. I don’t disagree with that, but I question whether the state government should be the decider of who will have a successful casino, or whether the market should decide. I am no familiar with the economics of casino gambling, but I have read that it is not a wonderfully profitable business, but casinos make money, because they handle a lot of money and hold onto a little of that. I haven’t been to Nevada recently, but I noticed that gambling was a sideline in many businesses; restaurants, etc. had a few tables or machines. Restaurants can make money, and ones that have an extra draw usually do better than those that don’t, so having a few table probably adds to the food business and pays for the operation of the gambling.

But that doesn’t explain why there are only three licenses in a Commonwealth that has a population of four million, or so. The right to get rich entails the right and possibility of going broke (or words to that effect). Why can’t anyone try to run a successful casino? I can see no reason why any restaurant, convenience store, gin mill, or whatever shouldn’t be able to conduct gambling within their premises. There probably should be some restrictions so that the games aren’t fixed, but the odds are with house, so why bother fixing the games. And some people think that the state should do something to help people who are so foolish that they go broke throwing their money at the gambling house, but why?

Enough for gambling.

They, the politicians, are also setting up to let their pals sell pot, while the corner store can’t. That’s even worse, because there is no need for special equipment or facilities. Pot can just be put into plastic bags and sold the same as it has been sold for decades. But only a limited number of people will be allowed to sell it, at least for now. And the price structure is absurd. It will still be sold with the risk premium that made sense when everyone in the supply pipeline had to worry about arrest and seizure of the goods.

There are many ways to calculation retail prices, but the easiest way, and maybe the best way, is to look at competing products and adjust for the differences between the items. At present the most comparable legal product is booze. There is a lot of variation in booze and in the process of booze, but a half gallon of hard liquor is comparable in effect to an ounce of pot.

If we look at it from the production point of view, then comparing pot with hops prices would make sense, because the two are closely related plants that require similar growing conditions. This page has a range of prices for hops, and the high end is $9.01 for less than 220 pounds.
http://indiehops.com/pdf//IH_contract_pricing.pdf
If hops sell for that, then pot could sell for that little, and still make money for the growers. If we want to take on taxes, then maybe we should go for a price of $90.00 per pound, ten times as much. Considering that government won’t have to waste money chasing down dealers any more, that means the government will come out well ahead. There are some people who think that the state government will have to take care of people who have problems from pot, but those people are already being helped by the state, so there should be no difference in cost. Maybe they’ll have to hand tax dollars to their pals, if the pals don’t get a guarantee money maker.

We should get serious about equal rights. Everyone should be able to try to make a living selling pot, if they want to. Just like everyone should be able to try to make a living running a gambling casino, if they want to.


Can anyone think of a good reason why pot shouldn’t be sold legally by anyone who wishes to sell the stuff?