Article Not Quite Accurate When Comparing California And Alaska [Pot] Taxes

This might seem like a post on pot, it's really a post on journalism and packaging information.  A chart comparing pot taxes and a sentence referencing Alaska caught my attention in this Los Angeles Times article

"One year of legal pot sales and California doesn’t have the bustling industry it expected. Here’s why"

LA Times reports marijuana business in California is below expectations.

The second paragraph offers a list of reasons:

"But as the first year of licensed sales comes to a close, California’s legal market hasn’t performed as state officials and the cannabis industry had hoped. Retailers and growers say they’ve been stunted by complex regulations, high taxes and decisions by most cities to ban cannabis shops. At the same time, many residents are going to city halls and courts to fight pot businesses they see as nuisances, and police chiefs are raising concerns about crime triggered by the marijuana trade."

The article also has this chart comparing taxes in various states.

Chart from LA Times article

It's not clear from this chart exactly how Alaska's cultivation tax translates into a way to compare with California's sales and excise tax and its cultivation tax (1/5 of Alaska's) impact on prices.  It also leaves out the fact that local governments may add their own tax on marijuana.

• So I did a quick comparison to an Anchorage store and an LA store to see their on-line prices.  :

  Anchorage - Alaska's Green Light District

  Sativa

   Headband - By Parallel 64                       1G  $18

  1/8

  $55
• Cinderella Dream - By Parallel 64  

  1G

  $15

  1/8

  $50
• Pineapple Dream - By Parallel 64   

  1G

  $15

  1/8

  $50

LA's The Pottery offers:

Happy House (s) - KNBIS  1/8 = $52   (says it includes all taxes, though there's a 10% charge for credit cards)

Cherry Sherbert - Passiflora (S)  1/8 = $50loc

Cherry AK (S/H)  Glass House  1/8 $50


[I just picked a store online near me where I'm staying in LA, and an Anchorage store that popped up online. Alaska stores have to use Alaska grown pot so I really don't think I can compare 'brands' like I could with, say, soft drinks.  But I picked Sativas.https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/sativa-indica-and-hybrid-differences-between-cannabis-types    These links probably won't last long as products and prices change.  Here's a guide to the quantities pot is sold in.]

There's one reference to Alaska in the text:

"With nearly a tenth of the population of California, that state has more licensed cannabis shops — 601. On a per capita basis, Alaska has also approved more pot shop licenses than California, — 94 so far. The state imposes a tax on cultivation, but there is no retail excise tax on pot."

First, Alaska approved pot in 2014, it went into effect in February 2015 and the first pot shop opened in October 2016.  

California voters didn't legalize pot until two years later.  The first legal recreational pot shop didn't open until January 2018.


So Alaska had a two year head start on California.  So it should have more licensed shops.  Also it took nine months longer than California to work out its regulations and have the first shops open, so maybe that meant fewer problems.  Though a less populated and more isolated state is probably easier to regulate.

I'd also point out that last sentence, while factual, may leave the sense that the lack of retail taxes might make a difference on prices.  As my quick comparison shows, if there is a difference, it's probably not significant.  It also doesn't mention that in Alaska local jurisdictions may tax marijuana.

What's notable about Alaska (state) marijuana taxes is that it is based solely on volume, not price.  

The other issues listed in the article - local resistance, excess regulation, the illegal market - probably are bigger issues than the taxes in California.