Thread: It's Here.

Originally Posted by i8pptuakamonstercam

and from the article it says

exactly, which contradicts the idea people were angry about the price; they were buying the expensive shit fastest.

Conspicuous consumption for stoners?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk

"The new doritos locos taco topped with fritos and crushed Funyuns."

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

exactly, which contradicts the idea people were angry about the price; they were buying the expensive shit fastest.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Conspicuous consumption for stoners?

This is the fun thread.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people who live in Colorado aren't what we in this thread would call "stoners". For speculation, let's think about another demographic: middle-aged professionals.

That is: people who graduated high school in the late-80s and 90s and early 2000s. They went to college or got jobs. Now they're in their 30s and 40s. They're married (or divorced), and have kids. They have good jobs. They have a mortgage. Their kids play sports.

Two things are true about these people.

(1) In their teens and early 20s, a lot of them got high.

Maybe not all the time, or even all that often. Maybe they never bought any. But at parties it was available and they didn't say no. It never became a habit, but it was fun on the occasions when it was available.

(2) They now have a lot to lose.

Having the RA catch you and your pals in a dorm room with a bong sucks, but no one is scarred for life by being put on Residence Hall probation for 2 semesters. Everyone at school will know what happened to you and no one will care.

Getting arrested for possession or intent to distribute when you're on your way to pick up your daughter from soccer practice is a huge deal and lots of people will care.


So I think that there are people who haven't used it for 10 or 20 years, and the price of a 1/4 oz has absolutely nothing to do with that decision. These people spend $60 on a bottle of champagne or scotch. They don't smoke because it's illegal. They don't get drug-tested at work, and their boss doesn't care about pot one way or the other, but if they get arrested there will be real problems.

I have no idea if my imaginary demographic exists, or is a factor in these early days. But I do know that radically changing the law has the chance to change consumption patterns. Prices on day 1 are often a poor indicator of long-term trends or equilibria.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Originally Posted by AetheLove

This is the fun thread.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people who live in Colorado aren't what we in this thread would call "stoners". For speculation, let's think about another demographic: middle-aged professionals.

That is: people who graduated high school in the late-80s and 90s and early 2000s. They went to college or got jobs. Now they're in their 30s and 40s. They're married (or divorced), and have kids. They have good jobs. They have a mortgage. Their kids play sports.

Two things are true about these people.

(1) In their teens and early 20s, a lot of them got high.

Maybe not all the time, or even all that often. Maybe they never bought any. But at parties it was available and they didn't say no. It never became a habit, but it was fun on the occasions when it was available.

(2) They now have a lot to lose.

Having the RA catch you and your pals in a dorm room with a bong sucks, but no one is scarred for life by being put on Residence Hall probation for 2 semesters. Everyone at school will know what happened to you and no one will care.

Getting arrested for possession or intent to distribute when you're on your way to pick up your daughter from soccer practice is a huge deal and lots of people will care.


So I think that there are people who haven't used it for 10 or 20 years, and the price of a 1/4 oz has absolutely nothing to do with that decision. These people spend $60 on a bottle of champagne or scotch. They don't smoke because it's illegal. They don't get drug-tested at work, and their boss doesn't care about pot one way or the other, but if they get arrested there will be real problems.

I have no idea if my imaginary demographic exists, or is a factor in these early days. But I do know that radically changing the law has the chance to change consumption patterns. Prices on day 1 are often a poor indicator of long-term trends or equilibria.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Your demographics are absolutely true.. I fall into this category. I am, as you say, a young/middle aged professional that enjoys the finer IPAs, the finer wines, the 16+ year old scotch, and the occasional 15-30$ cigar. I got high a lot in my school days, and I believe it would be nice to have that feeling again without having risk of losing my job or respect from other peers. If this legalization would spread to my area, I would most definitely engage in the act, responsibly of course.

My job would probably still drug test because it involves operating a refinery and say it for insurance reasons so no one gets hurt... Kinda like they do alcohol, even though it's legal.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by AetheLove

This is the fun thread.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people who live in Colorado aren't what we in this thread would call "stoners". For speculation, let's think about another demographic: middle-aged professionals.

That is: people who graduated high school in the late-80s and 90s and early 2000s. They went to college or got jobs. Now they're in their 30s and 40s. They're married (or divorced), and have kids. They have good jobs. They have a mortgage. Their kids play sports.

Two things are true about these people.

(1) In their teens and early 20s, a lot of them got high.

Maybe not all the time, or even all that often. Maybe they never bought any. But at parties it was available and they didn't say no. It never became a habit, but it was fun on the occasions when it was available.

(2) They now have a lot to lose.

Having the RA catch you and your pals in a dorm room with a bong sucks, but no one is scarred for life by being put on Residence Hall probation for 2 semesters. Everyone at school will know what happened to you and no one will care.

Getting arrested for possession or intent to distribute when you're on your way to pick up your daughter from soccer practice is a huge deal and lots of people will care.


So I think that there are people who haven't used it for 10 or 20 years, and the price of a 1/4 oz has absolutely nothing to do with that decision. These people spend $60 on a bottle of champagne or scotch. They don't smoke because it's illegal. They don't get drug-tested at work, and their boss doesn't care about pot one way or the other, but if they get arrested there will be real problems.

I have no idea if my imaginary demographic exists, or is a factor in these early days. But I do know that radically changing the law has the chance to change consumption patterns. Prices on day 1 are often a poor indicator of long-term trends or equilibria.

Cheers,


AetheLove

I can Guarantee this is a HUGE demographic. At least in Colorado.

Originally Posted by Demonofspeed07

My job would probably still drug test because it involves operating a refinery and say it for insurance reasons so no one gets hurt... Kinda like they do alcohol, even though it's legal.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Personal freedom is important, but so is responsibility. We drug-test for alcohol in some situations. We require particular types of clothing for some jobs. We require an extra set of medical tests and vaccinations for some jobs.

Some medications degrade our strength or alertness; hence "do not operate heavy machinery" warnings.

Some jobs require you to stay sharp. So you gotta stay sharp. There are people who, even when well rested and stone-cold sober, can't do those jobs.

There are gonna be bad things that happen in conjunction with someone, somewhere, being high. I'm already cringing inside thinking of the news reports we're gonna hear. I know that there are big artillery shells pre-filled with Weaponized Stupid, and that media-gunners are itching to let them fly.

Anyway, like the topic says: It's Here.

I know I'm not the only one who's interested to see how this works out.

Cheers,


AetheLove