Marijuana should be legalized as a spark for small business ownership

Thank you for accepting the challenge I look forward to the debate. What my opponent says regarding the reason for the high price of marijuana is only partially true. Price of Marijuana world wide is relatively high even where there is an acceptance of the drug such as Amsterdam. You claim that I have an ignorance of the dynamics of economics because I do not understand basic supply and demand concepts however you contradict yourself by saying that large conglomerates would eventually take over production. You also state that the reason cigarettes are of such a low cost yet able to turn a profit is due in part to the addictive quality of nicotine and marijuana does not, which I would completely agree. This in itself is an ignorance of a basic market principle, you have to create a profit. You also make the assumption that mass production of marijuana would generate the same good quality bud that smaller operations generate and this is completely false. As seen with any commodity it takes added time and care to generate high quality product. The brewers are known for this as well as those who produce cigars and cigarettes yet there is still a market for smaller companies who produce smaller quantity but higher quality and therefore more expensive goods. (examples: Flying Dog Beer, Crown Royal, Cohiba) While it is true that the production of paper products and textiles do not support my premise of small business I use only as a means to illustrate my point that hemp is a highly profitable untapped tax source. You do make a compelling point in that because of the low barrier to entry this would create a higher supply and lower demand thus lowering the price. While this may seem very accurate the low cost of actual growth still makes profit margin high enough to be profitable and since maintaining a small amount of plants requires less effort than growing on a larger scale (more than 25 plants) the entrepreneur can maintain another job and tend to his crop when he returns and thus putting more money in his pocket and more money into the tax system when he spends it. Others in the community who do not possess the knowledge or desire to begin growing and would rather purchase would remain high. I failed to mention in my opening state the requirement to be licensed (as is with alcohol). This was alluded when I spoke of the regulation but I failed to clarify what that meant. Obtaining a licence for distribution and sale would increase those barriers to entry and there by increase the demand offsetting the other factors that would increase supply. Just as with beer and liquor production (that can be done in any home with relatively little effort) creation for personal use would be totally acceptable but distribution and transporting over state lines would remain illegal without proper licensing just as with the aforementioned commodities. I also failed to mention that while selling for smoking is one way to consume marijuana the endless supply of baked goods would be a niche that those with the culinary skills could take advantage of. I know my opponent will again assume that corporations such as Toll House and Nabisco would diminish the return by competitive pricing but the evidence puts this argument at a disadvantage. They would no doubt exploit the opportunity but delicious specialty foods are still being made by the local baker. Though it may be more convenient to buy the prepackaged cookies and snacks from the grocer aisle people still purchase better quality food from the baker and he survives and even turns a profit. We even have specialty "gourmet" dog restaurants which would have seemed silly only 20 years ago. The point is that people have tastes and those tastes translate to profit. Why would someone spend 4 times more for Hydro when they could easily obtain regs for cheaper and in more abundant supply? Because it tastes better, doesn't make you as sleepy and heightens your senses more. It is a matter of personal taste. Budweiser would not be trying out new flavors of beer (at a higher cost to consumer than regular Bud) if not for the community of microbrewers who have significant enough market share to drive this upward competion. Certainly Budweiser could sell only Budweiser and Bud Light as well as lower quality and lower priced Busch and Natural Light but they do not want to lose any ground because demand is high for something new. And if people are willing to spend more for a quality product than they will explore that option. This does not mean that the competition from the microbrews dissipate as they are still around and doing well. Those that do not profit, drop out of the business and that is the natural selection process of the economy. Complete deregulation of anything, as we see it now in our economy with the banking collapse, leads to chaos in the marketplace, yet that is not what I am proposing. Everything needs to be carefully considered before making a decision as big as this and approached in a businesslike manner. By regulating it with amount limits grown for personal use and by locations where you could consume (hash bars, your home) you maintain a level of balance that is important in the market. I hope this overturns the claim that I am somehow 'ignorant' of basic economics 101 and would ask my opponent to not be as divisive in language until he understands my points clearer or uses more specific examples to illustrate my 'ignorance. '