[didibus]

I'm curious why growers feel it's still more advantageous to illegally grow? It must mean the risk/reward still dramatically favours illegal production. That's what needs to be addressed.

I think coffee/tobacco is probably a good example of what can be achieved with legalizing drugs. It might be the path to it is a bit slow as there's a transition, but I don't see why other drugs couldn't end up similarly to coffee.

Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the illegal production route?

[vineyardmike]

> Heck, you could argue it for everything even. Why do fruits and vegetables farms don't feel like going the illegal production route?

I’ve never illegally bought drugs but I know people that have. I would not be comfortable doing it, but plenty of people are. Drugs, especially legal ones, are expensive.

I’ve never illegally bought fruit and I do not know anyone who has. I don’t know anyone who would be comfortable doing it. Legal fruit is not expensive.

[didibus]

> Legal fruit is not expensive

Assuming we agree they aren't, why is that?

Or in other words, if we're saying it's because drugs are still too expensive and somehow illegal production can compete better on price, why is that?

Especially with weed, the process is so similar to any other commodity agricultural process.

> I would not be comfortable doing it, but plenty of people are

This seems transitory to me. If we take this separate to the price argument, I think it must be restricted to people that were already doing so prior to legal alternatives. Again, tossing the price factor out, I would suspect all new and future consumer would go to a legal source for purchase.

That said, the article talked about production, not wholesale. So it's not clear from the article that illegal sellers have risen, it's possible your street dealers have been impacted, but that legal vendors or byproduct makers are purchasing from the illegal supply chain still.

[vineyardmike]

> Assuming we agree they aren't, why is that?

Cheap labor. Low threshold for consumers to pay a lot, potentially government subsidy.

Drugs have way higher testing requirements. In California cannabis has intense testing and labeling requirements. Fruit doesn’t seem to. Also taxes of course.

> would suspect all new and future consumer would go to a legal source for purchase.

Oh absolutely agree. I think there’s a cohort that would way the drugs but not be willing to engage in illegal activity.

Maintaining stores and supply chains and not a guy with a burner phone and a beat up Toyota driving to a parking lot probably raises costs too (compared to illegal drugs, not fruit obviously). Same at every step of supply chain. The costs are likely high for compliance etc.