this post was submitted on
341 points (84% like it)
415 up votes 74 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 29 comments

[–]GayassMcGayface 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can't we all just get crossfaded and be friends?

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I have a feeling that legal Green Dragon would make a hugely profitable brand.

[–]GayassMcGayface 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Seriously. Marijuana infused beer/alcohol...I'm in.

[–]muddo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ah, the green dragon, thank you for bringing back wonderfully hazy memories.

[–]Fillibuster 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't understand this reasoning. I mean I'm surely not going to stop drinking if cannabis is legalized. I enjoy both, in moderation of course (stupid hangovers), and the two will often times be mixed like always. I don't think legalization will break their bank

[–]klobbermang 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It won't break their bank, but if their year to year profits drop even 5-10% the shareholders will flip, and since we live in a crazy world where shareholder value way outweighs actual long term strategy, they won't want that to happen.

[–]hayduke 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They do have a honest to goodness fiduciary duty to oppose prop 19; not doing so may invite a law suit on the part of the shareholders.

[–]sirberus 4 points5 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In a way, Alcohol has a monopoly on recreational party drugs. This means that if you were going to throw a party, and each person was going to contribute $30 or so towards bringing refreshments, a good chunk of that goes towards alcohol of some brand. So, obviously, a certain percentage of people will spend that money on bringing a flavor/brand of Alcohol. But with legalized marijuana, chances are a certain percentage of those people who would have purchased alcohol will purchase marijuana, which completely takes that money out of the Alcohol system.

Obviously alcohol companies have to compete with one another for the consumer dollars, but they do so within their sphere of control (again, they offer the only legal way to be inebriated over-the-counter).

Even if legalized marijuana doesn't attack Alcohol's consumer-base directly (meaning, people who drink alcohol will continue to drink alcohol while using marijuana), it affects the part of the equation that has to do with the amount of disposable income people have for things like alcohol. Suddenly that $XX a person spends every month on alcohol is spending half on Alcohol and half on marijuana.

This is frightening to any company.

There are two ways to look at this move by Big Alcohol. The first is just to respect the fact that this is what businesses do. A business should only be expected to make money, and every time you contribute money to that business, you are voting with your dollars to keep it alive financially. As shitty as this may be, they aren't doing it to be "evil," they are doing it because they are fighting a threat to their bottom-line.

Another, more emotional way, is to recognize the hypocrisy and insulting nature of this move by a company you may have supported suddenly turning on you and standing between you and what you want.

With that said, the only solution, if you disagree with this, is to forever boycott these companies. Not so much for the goal of crippling them financially, but just a personal boycott so you know that you are no longer supporting their actions.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, if you go back to purchasing from these companies, then you only proved that their product is so economically inelastic that they can slap their consumers in the face and they will still come back happily with dollars in their hand.

Personally, I am not much of a drinker, so it'd be easy for me... but its something to think about.

Edit: For some reference, consider these numbers from a CNBC report earlier this year. Right now, the Alcohol industry reaps about $188 billion in sales per year. A reasonable estimate of what a legal marijuana market would do is about $40 billion dollars.

This represents more than 20% of the profits of the Alcohol industry. Obviously all of this wouldn't be lost, as people may end up spending more of their money on drugs to compensate for the new option of marijuana vs. just alcohol, but realistically there will be a chunk that will convert their alcohol dollars into marijuana dollars. And that is why they will fight any other substance, no matter what it is, from getting a similar legal-halo in the drug market.

[–]fuckcancer 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I agree with you on just about every point. This is definitely why the alcohol companies are rallying against prop 19, but I feel that there is a not so small point that is currently being left out of the equation.

Illegal or not, just about everyone who wants to smoke marijuana already is smoking marijuana. The not-so-casual users' dollars are already being split amongst weed and alcohol, and we should factor that in as it's clearly something that will close the gap created in the bottom line. Not to say that we shouldn't realistically expect there to be no change at all, but it's probably smaller than they are fearing.

That said, I completely agree that once not morally objectionable on grounds of legality that the party drug market will be split in the foreseeable future, but it's important to note that most of alcohol's revenue comes in from people who drink regularly and not just at a party.

[–]sirberus 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've heard that argument before, but you're applying it wrong.

The argument that "the majority of the people who will use legal marijuana already use it illegally" is only valid when you are arguing against someone who claims that "legal marijuana will increase the number of users." Obviously some people who never would have used it would, but they will be proportionately smaller to the people who were already users during prohibition.

Attempting to apply it to the economic argument ignores the fact that it doesn't matter if the people were already smokers, it is hard to deny the fact that marijuana being more easily accessible, likely more affordable, and just more accepted in general will cause those same already-smokers to purchase more marijuana.

Consider the smoker who smokes at home, or at parties where others smoke... yet purchases alcohol at public events or when smoking is frowned upon. Those dollars right there, if given the chance, would likely be converted into marijuana sales if the consumer had the option. But they aren't, because the option isn't there.

People seem to forget the economics of the situation. Legalized marijuana isn't going to give people more money to spend on booze and marijuana... it will give more choices, within an already narrow market, for a finite pool of disposable income.

If you owned the only chain of Burrito restaurants in your city, the thought of a chain of Burger restaurants opening in the same area should scare you. It doesn't matter if its not the same type of food, it doesn't matter if the people who buy your burritos have always enjoyed eating burgers from other areas. The fact is that now each and every one of your customers can choose between buying your burrito or buying a burger, or buying less burritos so they can have more burgers, etc.

A friend of mine, for example, lives in an area that has been under development for the past few years. For the first year that he lived in his home, the only places that were semi-close (still required a jump on the freeway though) was Taco Bell and Del Taco. So when my friend didn't want to make food, his disposable income for food went towards The Burrito Industry. About a year later they finished a mall that was slightly closer and had some burger place (that is now closed). They weren't great burgers, but it was different. Some days he would have Taco Bell/Dell Taco, some days a burger. It was about the same amount of money for him, but the amount of money Taco Bell/Dell Taco were seeing was reduced simply because of an option. Now that there are even more options, there are more places getting chunks of his money. Despite the fact that there was competition for his money within The Burrito Industry, it was still a fairly closed system. If it were possible for Taco Bell and Dell Taco to team up and prevent any other options from popping up, they would have in a heartbeat. This is business.

[–]fuckcancer 0 points1 point ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It would be more accurate if the burger store in the analogy were there already but it was invisible and people knew about it and could get a friend to point them in the right direction but the storefront would change locations and operating times and if the food from there was given to you in such a way that you could buy large amounts of it that would keep for a relatively long time so that you could store at your house until you were hungry.

People can toke up before going out, on the way, etc. The option is there. People already have the option. People are currently buying both weed and alcohol. Their disposable income is split between the two already.

Sure, you're giving me examples that I agree will make a difference, but if you go back and read what I wrote I agree that there'll be a difference. You can keep on giving me more examples about where these differences may occur, but it in no way makes my statement false.

I stand by it. Legal or not, people are already splitting disposable income between marijuana and beer. This is one of the many reasons why we can say prohibition doesn't work. It doesn't make the prohibited substance go away. Money is still going towards it, even if the numbers will change a bit.

Ignoring my sentiment may be a bad thing, because it's true and could possibly be used against us. Ignoring the fact that people's disposable income is partially already being factored into weed versus beer in some shape and form isn't going to make it not factor into the real final numbers. I'm not claiming that the final numbers will be either big or small, I'm just claiming that with this factored in it shrinks the difference a little. After all, the marijuana industry is a billion dollar industry and someone is paying for it.

I'd like to state once again that I agree with you more than I disagree, and if it helps my extra data set in no way nullifies your initial points.

PS. I like you. You have fun conversations.

[–]sirberus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Haha, fair enough.

But in the end, the general idea is simply:

  • Legalized weed has a very serious potentiality at reducing profits, of some size, from rivals within the market of inebriation and feeling good.
  • Current contenders in the market do not want another player
  • Companies will always spend money towards things that they believe will save them more money in the long term.

And I like you too ;)

[–]naullo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Illegal or not, just about everyone who wants to smoke marijuana already is smoking marijuana.

Uuh, not true. I'd smoke marijuana if I could. Not all of us have dealer/pothead friends.

[–]GeneraLeeStoned 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To large corporations, a 10% cut is shattering. It could be much more than that.

Would I stop drinking? For the most part. I only drink because I can't smoke.

So I want to give a big FUCK YOU to big alcohol. You brew a toxic, addictive poison, yet don't want a natural non-addictive plant to be legal. Your product is the direct cause of over doses, domestic violence and drunk driving.

[–]heffocheffefer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've pretty much stopped drinking since I started smoking. A lot of my friends have done the same. I would be drinking if I wasn't smoking, based on that it would make sense for them to fight it. It's not a case of breaking their bank, it's a cost/benefit thing.

[–]rlburnside 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

CBBD paid $10,000 to "No on 19" and here's a list of the members. If you buy (bought) their beers, let them know that you don't approve.

BREWER/IMPORTER ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Anheuser-Busch InBev
Black Eagle Imports
Boston Beer Co.
Crown Imports, LLC
Diageo-Guinness USA
Full Sail Brewing Co.
G.K. Skaggs, Inc.
Heineken USA, Inc.
Hudepohl-Schoenling Brewing Co
Moosehead USA
New Belgium Brewing Co.
Pabst Brewing Co.
Phusion Products LLC
Sierra Nevada Brewing Co.
Stone Brewing Co.
Trident Products and Distribution Inc./Liquid Nitro

VENDOR ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Alcoholic Beverage Consulting, Inc.
ARCO National Construction Co., Inc. – Beverage Group
Bingham McCutchen LLP
California Marketing
Credit Suisse
Crossroads Equipment Lease and Finance
Dorsey and Whitney, LLP
Grubb & Ellis Company
Innovative Beverage Products
Ippolito Christon & Co.
Jenkins Insurance Group
Micro Matic – West
Peet’s Coffee & Tea
Portable Computer Systems
Ryder

[–]woodreaux 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm glad HoffBrau isn't on that list. BTW, there aren't any wineries or vineyards participating in this bullshit are there?

[–]ObviousPseudonym 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Peet's!!!! Say it ain't so!

[–]pringle88 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Pot is (in my opinion) the best hangover cure... you'd think they would be friends...booze and pot

[–]wannagetbaked 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And then stand up against Big Pot for etc etc.......

[–]skEwb 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah it sucks, from a small growers point of view not fun to lose profits and give it up to "Walmart Weed Company" if Prop 19 passes. On the other hand, it would be nice to have the freedom to do what you want and not worry about fines/jail time.

[–]vsaint 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did they ever factor in that beer is super delicious stoned?

[–]kokope11i 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Silly alcohol companies. I get high, I get thirsty, i drink more tasty beverages.

[–]shrewd 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Figures, they may be deprived of profit if prop 19 succeeds.

[–]mungdiboo 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

$10,000 isn't going to do anything.

[–]killswithspoon 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You guys are looking too far into this. Surely there is a financial concern, but I think most of the anti-marijuana sentiment stems from the fact that the people who are major shareholders in alcohol companies are older white men, who certainly have instilled in them deep-seated biases against cannabis, and recreational drugs in general. Don't think just because "Big Alcohol" is throwing money around to defeat Prop 19 that there is a some vast corporate conspiracy at play.

[–]Ol_Dirty_Bastard 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am pleasantly surprised at not finding an ALCOHOL SUX circle jerk in this topic :).

[–]bolllocks 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

(Read 1365 times)

[–]ryan1234567890 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

10K is nothing. I'm surprised that we even heard about this.