Legal marijuana is officially on sale in Washington, making the state the nation’s second to sell pot for purely recreational purposes to customers 21 and over. Tuesday, then, should be a very good day for Washington state’s pot aficionados, despite the regulatory chaos that has resulted in just one store opening in Seattle, and a potentially tiny supply overall.
But there’s one group of people who stand to lose out on pot legalization: the dealers who have been selling pot illegally in the state for years. If there’s a new legal market where you can get pot, you could reasonably assume that buyers will shift away from the illicit market.
Right now, that’s not how actual dealers see it. “I don’t think the illegal pot market will be directly affected, at least not yet,” a person familiar with selling illicit drugs in Washington state told National Journal in an email. “People purchase things based on quality, trust and rapport! The same especially applies to medicine, I would assume!”
“I don’t expect my day-to-day life to change much,” he said. “We’ve already been transitioning somewhat by networking. I think things will be fine for everyone who sells…. We are more worried about the long-term effects, over the next two years.”
As you’d expect, it’s not the easiest thing in the world to get a full survey of drug dealers operating illegally in Washington state. But speaking with people associated with the trade helps give a sense of just what increasing marijuana legalization is doing to our country’s illicit drug dealers, and how they’re thinking about the rapidly changing environment.
“I’ve worked for Starbucks too, and view it the same way. In both cases, I sold drugs to bleary-eyed people to put myself closer to my goals. One was legal, one wasn’t. Maybe I was lucky, but for the better part of a decade, I couldn’t tell the difference.”
Below is a slightly edited e-mail conversation I had with a separate person involved in Washington’s drug trade, a guy who operates out of Seattle. He’s worked in illegal pot for the last seven years, split between California and Washington. While he’s been completely reliant on selling for his personal income in the past, he now is otherwise employed, and marijuana sales represent about a quarter of his total income. He says that he specializes in particularly high-quality pot.
Matt Berman: Why do you sell pot?
Seattle Dealer: Without dismissing moral/cultural arguments, my involvement with the marijuana trade is financially motivated. When my friends and I began consistently using, I often found myself in the position of acquirer due to my contacts. I quickly saw the financial advantage of buying in bulk, though took no profit when distributing to close friends. As those close friends started referring acquaintances, I realized the possible business capacity.
I moved to Los Angeles just after the advent of the medical-marijuana legislation, which effectively allows bulk sales to credentialed California residents. As universities are typically comprised of many non-residents, there was an obvious consumer base. Although I never applied for a medical-marijuana license, the prevalence of marijuana dispensaries and cooperative license holders made acquisition easy. At the same time, I began illicitly growing and harvesting various plant strains, which eventually provided me with a high-quality, and consistent, product.
When I returned to Seattle, the political setup was very similar to that in California, and I resumed selling using all of the practices I’ve learned. I’ve lately stopped growing, in exchange for a 9-5.
“In my ideal world, marijuana would be classified alongside alcohol, tobacco, and all other recreational drug use. Perhaps hypocritically, I would also see such use of all drugs, alcohol included, completely prohibited and abolished from our society.”
MB: How do you feel about marijuana legalization generally? What does your ideal regulation look like, and do you think Washington is moving in a positive direction?
SD: In my ideal world, marijuana would be classified alongside alcohol, tobacco, and all other recreational drug use. Perhaps hypocritically, I would also see such use of all drugs, alcohol included, completely prohibited and abolished from our society.
But that’s not gonna happen.
So in our current legislation, marijuana should be scheduled at the level of alcohol. Specifically, harvested products (flowers) should be equated to beer/wine regulation and distillates (hash, oils) equated to distilled spirits. In this sense, Washington seems to be headed in the right direction, but there is still significant ambiguity as to how it will unfold with time.
MB: How have you been planning for legalization? Do you expect much in your life to change?
SD: I’ve rationalized Washington’s projection on Colorado’s response to legalization. The two obvious factors at play are accessibility and price/quality. Legalization increases accessibility, as physical stores are much more reliable than mobile dealers. On the same coin, significant overhead and taxation have caused Colorado’s legal prices to increase up to $18 for a gram, with little discount in bulk. For comparison, I usually pay $7 a gram when buying 1 ounce, down to $4 a gram per pound.
Legal stores are especially attractive to growers and distributors, and most street dealers would appreciate the consistent paycheck. The illicit trade will keep certain privileges, namely price and discretion, and those who have grown up calling a contact will likely continue. But for new and casual users, it’ll be much more convenient to stop in the local shop.
MB: What’s next for you? Do you think you’ll be able to continue selling pot illegally, or would you try going legal or stop dealing altogether?
SD: Ultimately, I’ve worked for Starbucks too, and view it the same way. In both cases, I sold drugs to bleary-eyed people to put myself closer to my goals. One was legal, one wasn’t. Maybe I was lucky, but for the better part of a decade, I couldn’t tell the difference.
If its been this way all along, what’s left for legalization to bring? I think I’m done selling weed. It’s a gig better suited to the student life. I’ve got a good job in my chosen field, and it’s way better.
But I am looking forward to building another greenhouse.
Note on sourcing: The people interviewed for this story would only talk if they were allowed to remain anonymous. Because. You know.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”