Survey of U.S. Home Growers Published. Claims include, "Women make up 61% of cannabis home growers."

[Son of Hobbes]

So, the statistics are missing much of the growers "in it for profit." What percent of US home growers (or whatever group you are familiar with) would you consider to be profit-making? What's the ratio of non- vs. for-profit growers?

"in it for profit." Is this selling a few ounces or growing being the primary source of income?

Why would the statistics include "growers in it for profit?" You're literally describing the black market. lol

 

[BII]

Why would the statistics include "growers in it for profit?" You're literally describing the black market. lol

Why wouldn't surveys, educated guestimates, etc. of the cannabis community include asking and/or reporting about growing for and purchasing from the for profit/black market, including how many home growers (legal or not) divert some significant portion of their harvest to illegal sales to 3rd parties? Besides being of broad interest, this is mission-critical data for legalization and law enforcement programs.

The "black market" is what the States (particularly if collecting taxes on dispensary sales), the dispensary industry, those politically involved in this issue on all sides, law enforcement, the concerned public (including cannabis users), etc. all want to know about. A prime rationale for legalization and law enforcement by States is the goal of destroying the black market. The success (or not) of gov't programs is something they (and ideally also independent 3rd parties) need to track to justify their budgets, convoluted legal sales regulations and black market-targeted law enforcement efforts.

 

[Son of Hobbes]

The "black market" is what the States (particularly if collecting taxes on dispensary sales), the dispensary industry, those politically involved in this issue on all sides, law enforcement, the concerned public (including cannabis users), etc. all want to know about.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they all want to be tuned-in on all the illegal profits being made, all the revenue that hasn't been taxed, all the dealers that are still illegally growing and selling? They've wanted this information since day 1. I guess I fail to see how legalization would somehow put these individuals in the mindset of "oh, well it's mostly legal now, here's our input to help fuel your statistics."

What I'm saying is what person, in their right mind, would willingly offer up information that could land them in jail?

A prime rationale for legalization and law enforcement by States is the goal of destroying the black market.

This hasn't happened in one single legal cannabis market since legalization came about though. The black market will -always- exist.

The success (or not) of gov't programs is something they need to track to justify their budgets, convoluted legal sales regulations and black market-targeted law enforcement efforts.

Should this be of concern to cannabis growers and consumers?

 

[KingRatt]

Why would the statistics include "growers in it for profit?" You're literally describing the black market. lol

I was asking what qualifies as a home grower? Anybody growing from home? For profit or otherwise? Thats all i think it was.

 

[BII]

Regarding "What I'm saying is what person, in their right mind, would willingly offer up information that could land them in jail?:" By this reasoning, why would anyone fully document their grows, their violating the law (with if not at state level, all US growers violating federal drug manufacturing laws) by participating here on AFN?

Like AFN, asurveys can be and often are completely confidential, not collecting any personal identifiers; and people often freely give sensitive information if they see they can't be identified. That's often how we get commonly reported estimates of such things as voting practices, tax cheating, sex practices, illegal drug use, religious affiliations, illegal gambling, etc.

 

[Olderfart]

Historically we've had many female growers on the forum. Many chose anonymity, because the internet is full of creepy fucks who like to give unsolicited online shoulder rubs and call people "sweetie" and "sugar" because of the presumption of breasts. At one point in time in the past we had a few members sending nudies to each other back and forth on the forum (we won't mention names or how that was found out, but.... ugh. lol.)

As for the rest of the results:



That is unfortunately a major hang-up.

No survey design info means likely bullshit to me. Without the information, there is no way to know, but the lack of it is IMO a strong indicator that the survey is poor, and the reporters know it. Absent proper survey and sampling design, the results would be meaningless or worse.

 

[Olderfart]

Why wouldn't surveys, educated guestimates, etc. of the cannabis community include asking and/or reporting about growing for and purchasing from the for profit/black market, including how many home growers (legal or not) divert some significant portion of their harvest to illegal sales to 3rd parties? Besides being of broad interest, this is mission-critical data for legalization and law enforcement programs.

The "black market" is what the States (particularly if collecting taxes on dispensary sales), the dispensary industry, those politically involved in this issue on all sides, law enforcement, the concerned public (including cannabis users), etc. all want to know about. A prime rationale for legalization and law enforcement by States is the goal of destroying the black market. The success (or not) of gov't programs is something they (and ideally also independent 3rd parties) need to track to justify their budgets, convoluted legal sales regulations and black market-targeted law enforcement efforts.

All true enough, but absent information on survey intent and design we have no idea what the objective of the survey was, or how well it was done. If ILGM was behind the survey, it was not likely intended to inform law enforcement. The entire report may be just click bait. Unlike this forum, ILGM has commercial objectives in generating traffic. Which, it seems to me, is pretty much what they do.

 

[BII]

All true enough, but absent information on survey intent and design we have no idea what the objective of the survey was, or how well it was done. If ILGM was behind the survey, it was not likely intended to inform law enforcement. The entire report may be just click bait. Unlike this forum, ILGM has commercial objectives in generating traffic. Which, it seems to me, is pretty much what they do.

The more surveys done on a topic, the more likely this will eventually result in better evaluated and consensually-accepted data; and better, more authoritative/trustworthy surveys being done. In the meantime, some, even funky, data on a topic are better than none. So fine with me if I Love Growing Marijuana/ILGM does a survey that's likely biased when objectively evaluated.

[On the topic of inherent bias, isn't even the use of "marijuana" now not 'correct' or otherwise controversial and widely considered best avoided, viewed as a relic of decades of culturally and even racially/ethnically biased anti-cannabis campaigns? Is this the reason for the relative non-use of the word on AFN?]

 

[VitaMan]

I've put the black hat on so I'm a bit of a right now.

How was the survey distributed? How were respondents solicited? What size was the sample and was there verification?

Not likely to be an accurate representation but fun anyways. Thanks Nebula.

Gender? Really?
He's, She's and Them's all have green thumbs and share our love of the medicine!

 

[Son of Hobbes]

I've put the black hat on so I'm a bit of a right now.

How was the survey distributed? How were respondents solicited? What size was the sample and was there verification?

Not likely to be an accurate representation but fun anyways. Thanks Nebula.

Gender? Really?
He's, She's and Them's all have green thumbs and share our love of the medicine!

We've done some random polling here. Do we have to complicate things more than asking simple questions to garner a response?

Or -should we- actually push to fulfill the criteria that makes the internet give a hardy response of:

Can we please everyone?

Can we please anyone?

... I think I'm higher than you guys. Keep up.