Marijuana First, Then the Oil

field-of-marijuana-dreamsA number of writers and commentators, myself among them, have joked throughout 2009 that budget-crushed California would eventually be forced to tap unconventional sources of revenue. Frankly, I thought offshore oil would be first. Somewhere beyond the analytical error of drill drill drill, which can never produce enough oil to influence the price but would indeed produce the capital many States so desperately need, I’d anticipated that Sacramento would soon find its way to the sunken treasure that lays off its coast. I was wrong. Because it looks like California is going to tap marijuana first.

This is good news because it suggests some in California are ready to deal with their new negotiating partner: reality (Kunstler). It is absolutely rational and level-headed for California to consider legalizing and taxing marijuana. The state is already a leader in the production of medical marijuana, and the climate in many parts of the State is perfect for the crop. An ancillary benefit could be to dampen, if not deaden, some of the drug trafficking incentives which have been in place for over 40 years along California’s border with Mexico. We have reached the point where California needs to develop both marijuana and oil economies.

Although California oil production peaked in 1986, the state is still producing nearly half a million barrels a day. That is 10% of US production. But 80% of that production still comes from onshore. As laid out several times on this blog, I remain a strong advocate of oil drilling off the coast of California–but– for the state to use 100% of those proceeds to build light rail, commuter rail, and high speed rail–in that order. See my October 2008 post: Mission Statement Needed – California Must Lead the Way.

By some estimates marijuana crop production in California accounts for roughly 14 billion in gross sales. That would make marijuana the states largest single cash crop. One has to believe that current growers would happily trade the costs and risks of concealment for the visibility of taxation. Which would also afford property protection. The current estimate is that taxation could start to yield over 1 billion for the state annually. That’s not going to close either the budget gap of 26 billion, or, make a dent in a 100 billion annual budget. But legalization could bring some efficiencies and perhaps became the basis for an expansion of the marijuana economy.

offshore-oil-and-gas-ca2The motherlode of untapped capital remains in California’s offshore reserves of oil and gas. Speaking very generally, if California were able to quadruple offshore daily oil and gas production from the current 100 kb/day (mboe) to 400 kb/day in a price environment that is plausible to the production period of 100 dollars a barrel–starting in 2012–that would represent gross oil sales of nearly 15 billion a year. The royalties to the State from oil and gas production could be far higher than the tax rate applied to the state’s future marijuana industry.

The potential legalization of marijuana in California should be embraced, if only as a sign of a cultural shift from an era of fantasy-based debt creation to a reality-based era of resource maximization. In order to more firmly reinforce such a paradigm shift in the minds of the electorate, Sacramento would be well advised in addition to track on open websites the transparent utilization of marijuana taxation–say, to fund state health programs. And, in similar fashion with offshore oil and gas royalties that fund rail construction and operation. The taxpayer, in a time of deep cynicism and despair, needs to witness and be a part of positive transformation. My vision, which I have written about continually here at Gregor.us, is that light-rail users will travel down Pico Blvd in Los Angeles in trains that bear the following placard: “This rail system 100% funded by offshore oil and gas royalites.”

Given that the current economic collapse-path is unstoppable, with no mitigating economic event or development on the horizon, California should get started now.

–Gregor

Further Reading:

Los Angeles Times: No Marijuana Taxation Without Legalization.

EIA: State of California Energy Profile.

Annual Reports of the (CA) State Oil & Gas Supervisor, 2007-2000.

Updating: TV clip of my discussion of these issues on BNN Toronto, Thursday 24 July 2009.

  • Man that's a lot of weed in that pic! :)
  • Ringo Lennon with Mobs Mabley
    We're hoping you will listen to the several-second preview of
    "Bob, Hope(Don't Smoke...)" on this Amazon.com link--
    http://www.amazon.com/Bob-Hope-Dont-Smoke/dp/B0...
    967734?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1255754697&sr=8-1
    --with an ear to enjoying it and forwarding it.
    A free .mp3 file of the song can be sent on reply. Thank you
    for taking the time. We would obviously love to hear something back.

    Cordially,

    Ringo Lennon with Mobs Mabley
    http://ringolennon.intuitwebsites.com/Home.html
  • cbmurdock
    It's so nice to hear some well thought-out, educated responses. Kudos. What is interesting to me is how many of America's pot defenders are articulated and professional, rather than stoner burnouts, as the anti-drug commercials suggest. I am fearing, however, that the push for legalization/decriminalization seems to have died down lately since Sen. Frank's bill and others were being introduced to Congress. I personally find it a severe injustice by our government to protect pot prohibition, while it was passed by bigots, who feared marijuana was a sign of cultural influence from Mexico. Today these laws are kept alive by alcohol, tobacco and (most notably) legal drug companies who fear a natural, herbal drug with proven medical affects and less dangerous side-affects might hinder their profits. I predict that most states will follow California and Colorado, and stop persecuting patients and other innocent pot smokers for (as Eric said earlier) this victimless crime.

    - Charles
  • johnheinz
    "Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance… For it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crime. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded". - Abraham Lincoln
  • I fear a government taxing weed, they could care less right now [kind of anyway] if they tax it they will start tearing down the doors of people suspected of growing. The true criminalization of marijuana. I think I like it just the way it is even though I don't smoke the crap.
  • gregor.us
    Much thanks to Andy and Kim on BNN, for giving me a chance to fully air these views, to a Candian audience:

    BNN Toronto Thursday 23 JULY 2009: http://bit.ly/UypYh
  • I wish I had been watching live! Way to go!

    "$100...2012...conservative" ...love it.
  • sgornick
    Currently the Blue Line light-rail that currently travels down Pico Blvd in L.A. is at street level, causing congestion for surface-street passenger cars and trucks, and causing delays to the light-rail system as well. Hopefully if there was a chunk of money, it would be used to elevate or run the line as a subway underground.

    Or, preferably, used for a system that is better suited to L.A. sprawl: Personal Rapid Transit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_tra...
  • gregor.us
    Thankyou for all the comments.

    FWIW: people on the thread may be interested to know that I appeared an MSNBC this AM to discuss these issues (yes, you get about 15 seconds) and FOX had tried to get me on this afternoon. The producers read this blog post, and, your comments to get material. So, thankyou for making remarks!

    G
  • You forgot to mention how much California would say letting all the people out of jail who are there on marijuana related charges.
  • ioksototeaterofsouls
    Can't tell if any of the posters on this page care about this angle but Amarican prohibition is the main cause of global prohibition. Legel weed in California would undermine and hopefully contribute to ending US dominance of UN anti-drug bodies and treaties. This could only be good news for my country, South Africa as we (are told) produce something like 40% of the world's cannabis, dispite harsh penalties for growing and use. We are the Columbia of weed.
    Better hope they put up some trade barriers because SA is a giant weed growing machine itching for total global market domination.
    As a side issue, who gets to own patents on all the hybrid varieties and strains (there are 1000s) when a crop is illegal?

    ps. I'm impressed with the levelof reasoning and logical deduction the posters on this blog display. Some of you said you are sceptical about the 1 joint=20 cigs claims and correctly deduced that this is not an issue as the vast majority of cannabis users won't be smoking 20 joints a day, day-in-day-out like ciggarette smokers. (I'm assuming you havn't been exposed much to pro-cannabis advocacy) I can also assure you that eating cannabis can produce an entirely satisfying buzz, though you need slightly more.

    Holding thumbs for you guys!
  • edstone
    Pardon the pun, but it is high time that California legalizes marijuana. Not only for the fiscal reasons, not because prohibition is counter-productive, but because with this new budget, life in California is going to suck so bad we are all going to need to catch a buzz just to get through the next few years.
  • jafly
    My 40-something-year-old college educated, professional friends and myself here in Colorado have pledged a road trip to California should the state decide to legalize and tax marijuana to help solve its financial crisis. We don't smoke anymore really, gave it up in our 20's, but would gladly do our part to help out the economy by spending money on hotels, gas, food and of course, the bud itself, which we would kindly smoke before heading back across state lines. We would also be helping the economies of Nevada and Utah along the way by spending money on gas and lodging.
  • forgan
    There is one giant fact that everyone seems to ignore when talking about taxing pot: Pot is expensive largely because it is illegal. If it were legal, it might sell for something close to the price of cigarettes -- and a pack of 20 joints would last considerably longer than the average pack of 20 cigarettes.
  • And that's why taxing pot will never really generate revenue. I think the fiscal benefit for California and the US is money saved in not prosecuting this victimless crime.
  • BMR789
    I'm with you on this one Eric.

    Tax clip would pail compared to the savings that the Gov't would make in not having people run around busting people that grow currently, the process to convict and the process to administer a sentence - what ever that may be.

    So potential for wins on both sides of the debate.
  • iblogleft
    With all the renewable natural resources that exist in California, sun, wind, water and geothermal, oil is your solution? How many new jobs get created if we invest in new energy technologies versus old? I will give you a hint, its a thousand to one.

    I completely agree with Cannabis legalization though :-)
  • AVeryRoughRoadAhead
    Remember that there's a LONG lead time between authorizing drilling, and actual deliver-to-market production. By the time that any new Cali offshore oil would be produced, it'll probably be fetching $200/bbl.

    That'd do quite a bit to help the local economy.
  • gregor.us
    Hi,

    I'm not recommending the State invest in oil. If anything, it's a divestment in oil. I advocate the exchange of existing oil resources for capital that would build public transport. In terms of continuity on my blog, I have also suggested that oil proceeds be used to help build large array solar.

    In the current political environment, sometimes an idea such as mine--to extract oil to raise the necessary capital to transition away from cars--is misunderstood.

    G
  • roonerjeff
    Congrats on being published in the New York Times today.
  • gregor.us
    Eric Etheridge at the NYT Opinionator likes my stuff. Lucky for me.

    G
  • One hopes we are on the verge of being more heavily influenced by science and common sense than by drug war hysteria and superstition.
  • douglasstruth
    great comments here. I would say that given the context of researching marijuana's benefits and health costs - that is, it has been nearly impossible to do a study in the US that might prove its benefits - that I would be very suspicious of current research into possible problems. Remember the "LSD damages the DNA" studies - just propaganda.

    I agree that its health and social costs are negligible compared to the social costs of criminalization. Families broken, prisons built, careers (taxpaying!) ended. It's a catastrophe.
  • islandprincess
    Mexico is going to be PISSED!
  • gregor.us
    Mexico needs to do a controlled descent, starting now, of their oil exports. They're oil exports are going to zero anyway. Mexico like the US needs to get a plan for the future.

    G
  • Taxing the marijuana market does not only make sense for short-term income purposes, but it is the best long-term approach to depreciate its popularity among the masses. It is well known truth that when you forbid something, you make it scarce and therefore more expensive and more desired. The society should have an open conversation about the consequences of using pot. Legalizing it will provide more money to educate the masses and ultimately will lead to a more constructive long-term solution of an existing health problem.
  • Hmmm, I think our smog here in CA will become more potent. :-)

    On a serious note, though, what are your thoughts about how the legislators should hanlde this with future problems? I'm concerned that this save will put the taste of money in California's legislature. Meaning, when we get in trouble next time (because didn't curb spending) we'll start legalizing other things. Like Vegas-like gambling for instance.

    Any thoughts?
  • gregor.us
    Sacramento probably needs new debt creation laws Balanced budgets, etc). It's possible the country needs new debt creation laws. I would say the fractional reserve banking system, and the tradition of debt creation--and even the FED as an institution--are unlikely to escape from this crisis without being changed. The severity of the crisis is so massive, and will play out for a long time. It will likely influence policy for the next 40 years.

    G
  • i increasingly wonder if legislatures handle anything at all .. they seem reactionary, behind the times, and seeking to avoid responsibility .. we give them too much credit ... what do people think, is still important
  • The incredible news of this is not about health. America's health problems are tied primarily to the food supply, dietary choices, smoking, alcohol, and a sedentary life resulting from suburban development patterns. Marijuana's health impact is quite marginal considering the root causes of disease and health care expense.

    The real story is a major piece of the law enforcement paradigm coming apart. Think of the lives disrupted, the violence, the court time wasted, all for one plant that, let's face it, was never a scourge on the lives of Americans like heroin or even booze. All the drugs American's use to relax are tightly controlled and heavily taxed, be it wine, beer, or Xanax. Loosening the grip on marijuana will present an alternative product that grows stupidly easily in almost every climate. Making whisky is hard. Making beer and wine is reserved to small companies or devoted hobbyists. Pot grows with zero effort, everywhere. Taxing it will be nearly impossible. The bootleg markets would grow at a speed that would outpace Twitter.

    The savings will be in law enforcement, letting police focus on meth labs and heroin dealers, people causing real damage.

    That's right, state comptrollers, oil analysts, and strategic analysts all agree...LEEEEEGALIZE IT. And that's why this is a fun moment to be alive and thinking.
  • 3 words that will save California ---> Marijuana Green Tea. The velocity of Cali grown Marijuana will provide $6 Billion/yr in taxes.
  • there are many subtle energy changes from using marijuana that are not healthy ... one effect, known in the east, but not talked about in the west, is that much necessary emotional processing is blocked by ganja ... legalize it? hmm .. decriminalize it, ok ..
  • It's always struck me as odd that nobody brings up Cancer (lung and others) when speaking of legalizing pot. Of course, you don't have to "smoke" pot. Vaporizing can cut down on lung aliments and some people claim eating pot is a fine buzz. But let's face it: I bet most pot is smoked.

    A 2008 study out of New Zealand published in the European Respiratory Journal found that "one joint was equivalent to about 20 cigarettes" in terms of lung cancer exposure.

    In the high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

    "Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a news release.

    The scientists also noted that marijuana could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco since its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

    "There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke...what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco,” said Beasley.

    - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-51103...


    Now let's assume that the study is flawed somewhat. Let's cut in half and say one joint equals 10 cigarettes. Isn't there any thought to the overall health impact of legitimizing yet another smokeable "vice"? It seems to me the cigarette companies are being driven to extinction for this reason: lung and other cancer problems. How does the government go about parsing that message?

    Gov: "Cigarettes are bad, but pot is okay because it's a "safer" smoke?"

    Hate to say it but I doubt there is a "safe" smoke in terms of cancer. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there is something we can burn and inhale and our lungs, liver and kidneys will be fine with any residual affects. I'm willing to be wrong on that.

    Outside of medical marijuana, I just can't figure out how the US Gov. is going to drop 90 to 100 years of miscalculated ignorant demonizing of marijuana, change public policy by claiming "pot is now okay because we're fucking broke" AND save face.

    A few recent (within a 2-3 years) headlines to ponder:

    - "Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals"
    - "Marijuana Use Linked To Increased Risk Of Testicular Cancer"
    - "Heavy Marijuana Use May Damage Developing Brain In Teens, Young Adults"
    - "Marijuana Use Takes Toll On Adolescent Brain Function, Research Finds"

    I'm not against the legalization of marijuana ... I just don't understand how marijuana's role in cancer is being overlooked while society is in the process of a world wide tobacco prohibition.

    /Edit: Before I'm eviscerated by the Pro Pot crowd: I'm not against the legalization of marijuana. Just would like further health studies done.

    /Edit 2: Someone just sent me this study done in 2006: Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection

    ~Shepard
    =^.^=
  • Nigel Ainscoe
    I should just like to note that the Daily Mail is infamous for its poor reporting of scientific news, attributing often poorly performed trials as gospel. I'm not saying that this particular report is untrue (although it may be) just that I am unlikely base any of my beliefs on the content of this particular tabloid newspaper.
  • gregor.us
    Thanks Keith. Those are all very good points. At the moment, I am more concerned about the near term suffering and overall hit to health that will surely unfold from a sustained period of poverty in CA (and the US) than the effects of marijuana on the lungs. However, I don't mean to play these two outcomes off each other, and I think all the issues you raise are both serious and substantial.

    My guess would be that in a legalization phase, that a whole new range of marijuana intake-products would come on to the market, from baked goods to beverages.

    As another, separate point, I have recently seen some research on the 3 decade long integration of sugar and corn-syrup into the US diet. I mention this only because we have a number of quite serious problems to tackle and I grant that advocacy of marijuana legalization is not without flaws. However, in the context of American obesity in its various forms, I wonder that marijuana legalization presents minor rather than major negative externalities. I also have to consider that the market is already constructed, and that taxation would simply acknowledge what's already in play.

    G
  • moegamble
    My guess would be that in a legalization phase, that a whole new range of marijuana intake-products would come on to the market, from baked goods to beverages.

    These types of products are already selling like hotcakes at an Oakland-area pot clinic I patronize. Favorites include pot brownies and pot caramel sauce for ice cream sundaes.
  • greg
    I respectfully disagree, Gregor, I think marijuana legalization is without flaws.

    Seriously.
  • Good points as always, G. I appreciate the open dialogue. Looking forward to MacroTwits at 9 PM tonight. Cheers.

    ~Shepard
    =^.^=
  • Pretty doubtful people would be smoking pot in the volumes that people smoke cancer nails as well, right?

    I mean, even if it were equal to twenty nails (I'm skeptical of this claim), that'd be equal to one pack a day, yes?

    ________
  • Casinos, Cuba, and Cannabis
blog comments powered by Disqus