Tag Archives: cigarettes

Cost Of Marijuana In 120 Cities And How Much Tax Revenue If Legalized

January 21, 2021 The Silo 4 Comments

First a few quick facts….

● ‏Tokyo, Japan has the most expensive cannabis‏ ‏, at 32.66 USD per gram. ‏

● ‏Quito, Ecuador has the least expensive marijuana‏ ‏, at 1.34 USD per gram.‏

● ‏Based on the average US marijuana tax rates currently implemented, ‏ ‏New York City could generate the highest potential tax revenue by legalizing weed‏ ‏, with 156.40 million USD per year. New York City also has the highest consumption rate of cannabis, at 77.44 metric tons per year.‏

● ‏Cannabis costs ‏ ‏$7.82 per gram in Toronto, Canada‏ ‏. ‏

‏Berlin, Germany – ‏ ‏Automatic cultivator device, ‏ ‏Seedo‏ ‏, after much research and data gathering, previously released the 2018 Cannabis Price Index, detailing the cost of marijuana in 120 global cities. Seedo is one of the many new ventures embracing the newly legalized cannabis industry. Their main goal is to allow both medicinal and recreational consumers to grow their own supply, avoiding extra taxes and bypassing harmful pesticides. The aim of this study is to illustrate the continuous need for legislative reform on cannabis use around the world, and to determine if there are any lessons to be learned from those cities at the forefront of marijuana legalisation.

‏Although Seedo’s technology enables smokers to get off the grid, this study considers one of the biggest byproducts of legalising cannabis—the potential tax revenue for the local government body. For this reason, Seedo decided not only to research the cost of cannabis around the world, but also to calculate how much potential tax a city could generate if they were to legalise marijuana. ‏

‏The study began first by selecting 120 cities across the world, including locations where cannabis is currently legal, illegal and partially legal, and where marijuana consumption data is available. Then, they looked into the price of weed per gram in each city. To calculate how much potential tax a city could make by legalising weed, Seedo investigated how much tax is paid on the most popular brand of cigarettes, as this offers the closest comparison. They then looked at what percentage marijuana is currently taxed in cities where it’s already legalised in the US. ‏

‏“This study has revealed some incredible insights into the kind of tax revenue that legalising weed could generate.” says Uri Zeevi, CMO at Seedo. “Take New York City for instance, which has the highest consumption level in the study at 77.44 metric tons of cannabis per year. If they taxed marijuana at the average US cannabis tax level, the city could make $‏ ‏156.4‏ ‏ million in potential tax revenue per year. This is equivalent to providing nearly 3 months worth of free school meals to every single public school kid in New York City.” ‏

‏The table below reveals a sample of the results for ‏ ‏Toronto, Canada‏ ‏:‏

‏City‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏	‏Total possible tax collection, if taxed at cigarette level, mil US$‏	‏Total possible tax collection, if taxed at average US marijuana taxes, mil US$‏	‏Total consumption in metric tons‏
‏Toronto‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.82‏	‏124.15‏	‏33.38‏	‏22.75‏

‏The table below shows the ‏ ‏top 10 most and least expensive cities for cannabis‏ ‏:‏

‏Top 10 Most Expensive Cities‏					‏Top 10 Least Expensive Cities‏
‏#‏	‏City‏	‏Country‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏	‏#‏	‏City‏	‏Country‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏
‏1‏	‏Tokyo‏	‏Japan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏32.66‏	‏1‏	‏Quito‏	‏Ecuador‏	‏Partial‏	‏1.34‏
‏2‏	‏Seoul‏	‏South Korea‏	‏Illegal‏	‏32.44‏	‏2‏	‏Bogota‏	‏Colombia‏	‏Partial‏	‏2.20‏
‏3‏	‏Kyoto‏	‏Japan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏29.65‏	‏3‏	‏Asuncion‏	‏Paraguay‏	‏Partial‏	‏2.22‏
‏4‏	‏Hong Kong‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏27.48‏	‏4‏	‏Jakarta‏	‏Indonesia‏	‏Illegal‏	‏3.79‏
‏5‏	‏Bangkok‏	‏Thailand‏	‏Partial‏	‏24.81‏	‏5‏	‏Panama City‏	‏Panama‏	‏Illegal‏	‏3.85‏
‏6‏	‏Dublin‏	‏Ireland‏	‏Illegal‏	‏21.63‏	‏6‏	‏Johannesburg‏	‏South Africa‏	‏Illegal‏	‏4.01‏
‏7‏	‏Tallinn‏	‏Estonia‏	‏Partial‏	‏20.98‏	‏7‏	‏Montevideo‏	‏Uruguay‏	‏Legal‏	‏4.15‏
‏8‏	‏Shanghai‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏20.82‏	‏8‏	‏Astana‏	‏Kazakhstan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏4.22‏
‏9‏	‏Beijing‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏20.52‏	‏9‏	‏Antwerp‏	‏Belgium‏	‏Partial‏	‏4.29‏
‏10‏	‏Oslo‏	‏Norway‏	‏Partial‏	‏19.14‏	‏10‏	‏New Delhi‏	‏India‏	‏Partial‏	‏4.38‏

‏N.B. These tables are a sample of the full results. To find the complete results for all 120 cities, please see the bottom of the press release. ‏

‏The table below shows the ‏ ‏top 10 cities who could generate the most potential tax ‏ ‏by legalising cannabis, if taxed at the same rate as the most popular cigarette brand:‏

‏#‏	‏City‏	‏Country‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏	‏% of cigarette tax‏	‏Possible tax revenue, mil US$ ‏
‏1‏	‏Cairo‏	‏Egypt‏	‏Illegal‏	‏16.15‏	‏73.13‏	‏384.87‏
‏2‏	‏New York‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.76‏	‏42.54‏	‏354.48‏
‏3‏	‏London‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.20‏	‏82.16‏	‏237.35‏
‏4‏	‏Sydney‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.79‏	‏56.76‏	‏138.36‏
‏5‏	‏Karachi‏	‏Pakistan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.32‏	‏60.7‏	‏135.48‏
‏6‏	‏Melbourne‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.84‏	‏56.76‏	‏132.75‏
‏7‏	‏Moscow‏	‏Russia‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.84‏	‏47.63‏	‏128.97‏
‏8‏	‏Toronto‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.82‏	‏69.8‏	‏124.15‏
‏9‏	‏Chicago‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.46‏	‏42.54‏	‏119.61‏
‏10‏	‏Berlin‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏13.53‏	‏72.9‏	‏114.77‏

‏N.B. % of cigarette tax refers to the tax percentage on the most popular brand. Possible tax revenue refers to the total possible tax collection per year, if taxed at cigarette level. For a full explanation of how the study was conducted, please see the methodology at the bottom of the press release. ‏

‏The table below shows the ‏ ‏top 10 cities who could generate the most potential tax‏ ‏ by legalising cannabis, if taxed at the average US marijuana tax rate:‏

‏#‏	‏City‏	‏Country‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏	‏Possible tax revenue, mil US$‏
‏1‏	‏New York‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.76‏	‏156.4‏
‏2‏	‏Cairo‏	‏Egypt‏	‏Illegal‏	‏16.15‏	‏98.78‏
‏3‏	‏London‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.20‏	‏54.22‏
‏4‏	‏Chicago‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.46‏	‏52.77‏
‏5‏	‏Moscow‏	‏Russia‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.84‏	‏50.82‏
‏6‏	‏Sydney‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.79‏	‏45.75‏
‏7‏	‏Melbourne‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.84‏	‏43.9‏
‏8‏	‏Karachi‏	‏Pakistan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.32‏	‏41.89‏
‏9‏	‏Houston‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.03‏	‏39.32‏
‏10‏	‏Toronto‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.82‏	‏33.38‏

‏N.B. Possible tax revenue refers to the total possible tax collection per year, if taxed at average US marijuana tax rate.‏

‏The table below shows the‏ ‏ top 10 cities with the highest and lowest consumption of cannabis, ‏ ‏per year:‏

‏Highest Consumers of Cannabis‏

‏ Lowest Consumers of Cannabis‏

‏#‏

‏City‏

‏Country‏

‏Legality‏

‏Price per gram, US$‏

‏Total consumption, metric tons‏

‏#‏

‏City‏

‏Country‏

‏Legality‏

‏Price per gram, US$‏

‏Total consumption, metric tons‏

‏1‏

‏New York‏

‏USA‏

‏Partial‏

‏10.76‏

‏77.44‏

‏1‏

‏Singapore‏

‏Illegal‏

‏14.01‏

‏0.02‏

‏2‏

‏Karachi‏

‏Pakistan‏

‏Illegal‏

‏5.32‏

‏41.95‏

‏2‏

‏Santo Domingo‏

‏Dominican Rep.‏

‏Illegal‏

‏6.93‏

‏0.16‏

‏3‏

‏New Delhi‏

‏India‏

‏Partial‏

‏4.38‏

‏38.26‏

‏3‏

‏Kyoto‏

‏Japan‏

‏Illegal‏

‏29.65‏

‏0.24‏

‏4‏

‏Los Angeles‏

‏USA‏

‏Legal‏

‏8.14‏

‏36.06‏

‏4‏

‏Thessaloniki‏

‏Greece‏

‏Partial‏

‏13.49‏

‏0.29‏

‏5‏

‏Cairo‏

‏Egypt‏

‏Illegal‏

‏16.15‏

‏32.59‏

‏5‏

‏Luxembourg City‏

‏Luxembourg‏

‏Partial‏

‏7.26‏

‏0.32‏

‏6‏

‏Mumbai‏

‏India‏

‏Partial‏

‏4.57‏

‏32.38‏

‏6‏

‏Panama City‏

‏Panama‏

‏Illegal‏

‏3.85‏

‏0.37‏

‏7‏

‏London‏

‏UK‏

‏Illegal‏

‏9.20‏

‏31.4‏

‏7‏

‏Reykjavik‏

‏Iceland‏

‏Illegal‏

‏15.92‏

‏0.44‏

‏8‏

‏Chicago‏

‏USA‏

‏Partial‏

‏11.46‏

‏24.54‏

‏8‏

‏Asuncion‏

‏Paraguay‏

‏Partial‏

‏2.22‏

‏0.46‏

‏9‏

‏Moscow‏

‏Russia‏

‏Partial‏

‏11.84‏

‏22.87‏

‏9‏

‏Colombo‏

‏Sri Lanka‏

‏Illegal‏

‏9.12‏

‏0.59‏

‏10‏

‏Toronto‏

‏Canada‏

‏Partial‏

‏7.82‏

‏22.75‏

‏10‏

‏Manila‏

‏Philippines‏

‏Illegal‏

‏5.24‏

‏0.6‏

‏N.B. Total consumption is calculated per annum. ‏

‏Additional quotes:‏

‏“The way that the legalised cannabis industry is rapidly evolving alongside new technologies shows how innovative emerging tech companies are today.” says Uri Zeevi, CMO at Seedo. “Take the way that cannabis and cryptocurrency have joined forces, with ‏ ‏examples such as HempCoin or nezly, which manage processes and payments in the new marijuana industry.‏ ‏ When you consider too the potential that these new technologies have to disrupt the cannabis industry, there’s no denying that these are very exciting times.” ‏

‏“At Seedo, we’ve built technology that helps regular smokers to grow cannabis plants of the utmost quality from the comfort of their own home, avoiding pesticides and taking ownership of their personal supply.” says Uri Zeevi, CMO at Seedo. “We believe that by understanding the cost of weed around the world, we can help to educate smokers about the potential financial benefits of hydroponic growing technology.” ‏

‏“That illegal cannabis use is so high in countries that still carry the death penalty, such as Pakistan and Egypt, those in power ought to see how desperately new legislation is needed.” comments Uri Zeevi, CMO at Seedo. “By removing the criminal element from marijuana, governments will then able to more safely regulate production, take away power from underground gangs, and as we’ve shown in this study, generate huge tax revenues.”‏

‏Further findings:‏

● ‏New York City, USA has the highest consumption rate of cannabis‏ ‏, at 77.44 metric tons per year.‏

● ‏Boston, USA has the most expensive cannabis of all the cities where it’s legal‏ ‏, at 11.01 USD, while Montevideo, Uruguay has the least expensive at 4.15 USD. ‏

● ‏While Tokyo, Japan has the most expensive cannabis of all cities where it’s illegal, at 32.66 USD, ‏ ‏Jakarta, Indonesia has the least expensive at 3.79 USD, despite being classed as a Group 1 drug with harsh sentences such as life imprisonment and the death penalty.‏ ‏ ‏

● ‏For cities where cannabis is partially legal, Bangkok, Thailand has the most expensive at 24.81 USD, while Quito, Ecuador has the least expensive at 1.34 USD. ‏

● ‏Bulgaria has the highest tax rates for the most popular brand of cigarettes, at 82.65%, while Paraguay has the lowest, with rates of 16%. ‏

● ‏Cairo, Egypt would gain the most revenue in tax if they were to legalise cannabis‏ ‏ and tax it as the same rate as cigarettes, at 384.87 million USD. Singapore, Singapore would gain the least, at 0.14 million USD, due in part to the city’s low consumption of marijuana at 0.02 metric tons per annum.‏

● ‏Based on the average US marijuana tax rates currently implemented,‏ ‏ New York City could generate the highest potential tax revenue by legalising weed, with 156.4 million USD per year‏ ‏. Singapore, Singapore would gain the least, at 0.04 million USD

‏About “Seedo”‏ ‏: Seedo is a fully automated hydroponic growing device which lets you grow your own medicinal herbs and vegetables from the comfort of your own home. Seedo controls and monitors the growing process, from seed to plant, while providing optimal lab conditions to assure premium quality produce year-round. Seedo’s goal is to simplify the growing process, making it accessible for everyone, without compromising on quality. ‏

‏The full results of the 2018 Cannabis Price Index:‏

‏#‏	‏City‏	‏Country‏	‏Legality‏	‏Price per gram, US$‏	‏Taxes of cigarettes, % of the most sold brand‏	‏Total possible tax collection, if taxed at cigarette level, mil US$‏	‏Total possible tax collection, if taxed at average US marijuana taxes, mil US$‏	‏Total Consumption in metric tons‏
‏1‏	‏Tokyo‏	‏Japan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏32.66‏	‏64.36‏	‏32.14‏	‏9.37‏	‏1.53‏
‏2‏	‏Seoul‏	‏South Korea‏	‏Illegal‏	‏32.44‏	‏61.99‏	‏31.61‏	‏9.57‏	‏1.57‏
‏3‏	‏Kyoto‏	‏Japan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏29.65‏	‏64.36‏	‏4.64‏	‏1.35‏	‏0.24‏
‏4‏	‏Hong Kong‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏27.48‏	‏44.43‏	‏19.72‏	‏8.33‏	‏1.62‏
‏5‏	‏Bangkok‏	‏Thailand‏	‏Partial‏	‏24.81‏	‏73.13‏	‏99.11‏	‏25.44‏	‏5.46‏
‏6‏	‏Dublin‏	‏Ireland‏	‏Illegal‏	‏21.63‏	‏77.80‏	‏29.31‏	‏7.07‏	‏1.74‏
‏7‏	‏Tallinn‏	‏Estonia‏	‏Partial‏	‏20.98‏	‏77.24‏	‏22.13‏	‏5.38‏	‏1.37‏
‏8‏	‏Shanghai‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏20.82‏	‏44.43‏	‏49.12‏	‏20.75‏	‏5.31‏
‏9‏	‏Beijing‏	‏China‏	‏Illegal‏	‏20.52‏	‏44.43‏	‏43.10‏	‏18.21‏	‏4.73‏
‏10‏	‏Oslo‏	‏Norway‏	‏Partial‏	‏19.14‏	‏68.83‏	‏19.28‏	‏5.26‏	‏1.46‏
‏11‏	‏Washington, DC‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏18.08‏	‏42.54‏	‏47.51‏	‏20.96‏	‏6.18‏
‏12‏	‏Cairo‏	‏Egypt‏	‏Illegal‏	‏16.15‏	‏73.13‏	‏384.87‏	‏98.78‏	‏32.59‏
‏13‏	‏Reykjavik‏	‏Iceland‏	‏Illegal‏	‏15.92‏	‏56.40‏	‏3.97‏	‏1.32‏	‏0.44‏
‏14‏	‏Belfast‏	‏Ireland‏	‏Illegal‏	‏15.81‏	‏77.80‏	‏13.55‏	‏3.27‏	‏1.10‏
‏15‏	‏Minsk‏	‏Belarus‏	‏Illegal‏	‏15.80‏	‏51.15‏	‏9.08‏	‏3.33‏	‏1.12‏
‏16‏	‏Athens‏	‏Greece‏	‏Partial‏	‏14.95‏	‏79.95‏	‏7.42‏	‏1.74‏	‏0.62‏
‏17‏	‏Auckland‏	‏New Zealand‏	‏Partial‏	‏14.77‏	‏77.34‏	‏106.03‏	‏25.73‏	‏9.28‏
‏18‏	‏Munich‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏14.56‏	‏72.90‏	‏50.90‏	‏13.10‏	‏4.80‏
‏19‏	‏Helsinki‏	‏Finland‏	‏Partial‏	‏14.42‏	‏81.53‏	‏27.12‏	‏6.24‏	‏2.31‏
‏20‏	‏Singapore‏	‏Singapore‏	‏Illegal‏	‏14.01‏	‏66.23‏	‏0.14‏	‏0.04‏	‏0.02‏
‏21‏	‏Berlin‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏13.53‏	‏72.90‏	‏114.77‏	‏29.55‏	‏11.64‏
‏22‏	‏Stuttgart‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏13.50‏	‏72.90‏	‏20.20‏	‏5.20‏	‏2.05‏
‏23‏	‏Thessaloniki‏	‏Greece‏	‏Partial‏	‏13.49‏	‏79.95‏	‏3.17‏	‏0.75‏	‏0.29‏
‏24‏	‏Stockholm‏	‏Sweden‏	‏Illegal‏	‏13.20‏	‏68.84‏	‏15.06‏	‏4.11‏	‏1.66‏
‏25‏	‏Vienna‏	‏Austria‏	‏Partial‏	‏12.87‏	‏74.00‏	‏59.21‏	‏15.02‏	‏6.22‏
‏26‏	‏Copenhagen‏	‏Denmark‏	‏Partial‏	‏12.47‏	‏74.75‏	‏20.65‏	‏5.18‏	‏2.22‏
‏27‏	‏Moscow‏	‏Russia‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.84‏	‏47.63‏	‏128.97‏	‏50.82‏	‏22.87‏
‏28‏	‏Hamburg‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.64‏	‏72.90‏	‏50.16‏	‏12.92‏	‏5.91‏
‏29‏	‏Chicago‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.46‏	‏42.54‏	‏119.61‏	‏52.77‏	‏24.54‏
‏30‏	‏Philadelphia‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.30‏	‏42.54‏	‏68.37‏	‏30.16‏	‏14.22‏
‏31‏	‏Bucharest‏	‏Romania‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.18‏	‏75.41‏	‏17.23‏	‏4.29‏	‏2.04‏
‏32‏	‏Cologne‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.14‏	‏72.90‏	‏28.51‏	‏7.34‏	‏3.51‏
‏33‏	‏Geneva‏	‏Switzerland‏	‏Partial‏	‏11.12‏	‏61.20‏	‏5.90‏	‏1.81‏	‏0.87‏
‏34‏	‏Boston‏	‏USA‏	‏Legal‏	‏11.01‏	‏42.54‏	‏28.59‏	‏12.61‏	‏6.10‏
‏35‏	‏Adelaide‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.91‏	‏56.76‏	‏41.60‏	‏13.75‏	‏6.72‏
‏36‏	‏Istanbul‏	‏Turkey‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.87‏	‏82.13‏	‏21.79‏	‏4.98‏	‏2.44‏
‏37‏	‏Melbourne‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.84‏	‏56.76‏	‏132.75‏	‏43.90‏	‏21.58‏
‏38‏	‏Sydney‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.79‏	‏56.76‏	‏138.36‏	‏45.75‏	‏22.59‏
‏39‏	‏New York‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.76‏	‏42.54‏	‏354.48‏	‏156.40‏	‏77.44‏
‏40‏	‏Düsseldorf‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.70‏	‏72.90‏	‏15.82‏	‏4.07‏	‏2.03‏
‏41‏	‏Brisbane‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.63‏	‏56.76‏	‏66.88‏	‏22.12‏	‏11.09‏
‏42‏	‏Hanover‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.51‏	‏72.90‏	‏13.46‏	‏3.47‏	‏1.76‏
‏43‏	‏Prague‏	‏Czech Rep.‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.47‏	‏77.42‏	‏63.95‏	‏15.50‏	‏7.89‏
‏44‏	‏Frankfurt‏	‏Germany‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.29‏	‏72.90‏	‏18.06‏	‏4.65‏	‏2.41‏
‏45‏	‏Wellington‏	‏New Zealand‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.11‏	‏77.34‏	‏19.53‏	‏4.74‏	‏2.50‏
‏46‏	‏Dallas‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.03‏	‏42.54‏	‏51.01‏	‏22.50‏	‏11.95‏
‏47‏	‏Houston‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏10.03‏	‏42.54‏	‏89.13‏	‏39.32‏	‏20.89‏
‏48‏	‏Vilnius‏	‏Lithuania‏	‏Illegal‏	‏10.00‏	‏75.76‏	‏5.20‏	‏1.29‏	‏0.69‏
‏49‏	‏Zurich‏	‏Switzerland‏	‏Partial‏	‏9.71‏	‏61.20‏	‏10.33‏	‏3.17‏	‏1.74‏
‏50‏	‏Montpellier‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.70‏	‏80.30‏	‏12.21‏	‏2.85‏	‏1.57‏
‏51‏	‏Canberra‏	‏Australia‏	‏Partial‏	‏9.65‏	‏56.76‏	‏10.96‏	‏3.63‏	‏2.00‏
‏52‏	‏Zagreb‏	‏Croatia‏	‏Partial‏	‏9.43‏	‏75.26‏	‏24.35‏	‏6.07‏	‏3.43‏
‏53‏	‏Nice‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.40‏	‏80.30‏	‏15.80‏	‏3.69‏	‏2.09‏
‏54‏	‏Phoenix‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏9.35‏	‏42.54‏	‏58.26‏	‏25.71‏	‏14.65‏
‏55‏	‏Paris‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.30‏	‏80.30‏	‏102.25‏	‏23.90‏	‏13.69‏
‏56‏	‏Miami‏	‏USA‏	‏Partial‏	‏9.27‏	‏42.54‏	‏16.24‏	‏7.16‏	‏4.12‏
‏57‏	‏San Francisco‏	‏USA‏	‏Legal‏	‏9.27‏	‏42.54‏	‏30.94‏	‏13.65‏	‏7.85‏
‏58‏	‏London‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.20‏	‏82.16‏	‏237.35‏	‏54.22‏	‏31.40‏
‏59‏	‏Colombo‏	‏Sri Lanka‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.12‏	‏73.78‏	‏3.98‏	‏1.01‏	‏0.59‏
‏60‏	‏Riga‏	‏Latvia‏	‏Illegal‏	‏9.00‏	‏76.89‏	‏10.23‏	‏2.50‏	‏1.48‏
‏61‏	‏Bratislava‏	‏Slovakia‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.92‏	‏81.54‏	‏7.24‏	‏1.67‏	‏1.00‏
‏62‏	‏Milan‏	‏Italy‏	‏Partial‏	‏8.85‏	‏75.68‏	‏46.06‏	‏11.42‏	‏6.88‏
‏63‏	‏Varna‏	‏Bulgaria‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.83‏	‏82.65‏	‏4.84‏	‏1.10‏	‏0.66‏
‏64‏	‏Marseille‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.69‏	‏80.30‏	‏36.23‏	‏8.47‏	‏5.19‏
‏65‏	‏Glasgow‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.65‏	‏82.16‏	‏15.21‏	‏3.47‏	‏2.14‏
‏66‏	‏Toulouse‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.62‏	‏80.30‏	‏18.67‏	‏4.36‏	‏2.70‏
‏67‏	‏Birmingham‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.58‏	‏82.16‏	‏27.73‏	‏6.34‏	‏3.93‏
‏68‏	‏Kuala Lumpur‏	‏Malaysia‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.54‏	‏55.36‏	‏6.61‏	‏2.24‏	‏1.40‏
‏69‏	‏Monterrey‏	‏Mexico‏	‏Partial‏	‏8.45‏	‏65.87‏	‏4.17‏	‏1.19‏	‏0.75‏
‏70‏	‏Edinburgh‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.41‏	‏82.16‏	‏12.22‏	‏2.79‏	‏1.77‏
‏71‏	‏Lisbon‏	‏Portugal‏	‏Partial‏	‏8.36‏	‏74.51‏	‏4.69‏	‏1.18‏	‏0.75‏
‏72‏	‏Strasbourg‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.35‏	‏80.30‏	‏11.13‏	‏2.60‏	‏1.66‏
‏73‏	‏Warsaw‏	‏Poland‏	‏Partial‏	‏8.31‏	‏80.29‏	‏29.27‏	‏6.84‏	‏4.39‏
‏74‏	‏Lyon‏	‏France‏	‏Illegal‏	‏8.20‏	‏80.30‏	‏19.45‏	‏4.55‏	‏2.95‏
‏75‏	‏Los Angeles‏	‏USA‏	‏Legal‏	‏8.14‏	‏42.54‏	‏124.88‏	‏55.10‏	‏36.06‏
‏76‏	‏Liverpool‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏7.94‏	‏82.16‏	‏10.86‏	‏2.48‏	‏1.67‏
‏77‏	‏Amsterdam‏	‏Netherlands‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.89‏	‏73.40‏	‏20.94‏	‏5.35‏	‏3.61‏
‏78‏	‏Manchester‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏7.88‏	‏82.16‏	‏58.99‏	‏13.48‏	‏9.11‏
‏79‏	‏Rome‏	‏Italy‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.86‏	‏75.68‏	‏88.16‏	‏21.86‏	‏14.82‏
‏80‏	‏Toronto‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.82‏	‏69.80‏	‏124.15‏	‏33.38‏	‏22.75‏
‏81‏	‏Denver‏	‏USA‏	‏Legal‏	‏7.79‏	‏42.54‏	‏20.53‏	‏9.06‏	‏6.20‏
‏82‏	‏Naples‏	‏Italy‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.75‏	‏75.68‏	‏29.82‏	‏7.40‏	‏5.08‏
‏83‏	‏Leeds‏	‏UK‏	‏Illegal‏	‏7.67‏	‏82.16‏	‏16.93‏	‏3.87‏	‏2.69‏
‏84‏	‏Seattle‏	‏USA‏	‏Legal‏	‏7.58‏	‏42.54‏	‏20.59‏	‏9.08‏	‏6.39‏
‏85‏	‏Madrid‏	‏Spain‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.47‏	‏78.09‏	‏93.40‏	‏22.45‏	‏16.01‏
‏86‏	‏Calgary‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.30‏	‏69.80‏	‏52.23‏	‏14.05‏	‏10.25‏
‏87‏	‏Luxembourg City‏	‏Luxembourg‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.26‏	‏70.24‏	‏1.62‏	‏0.43‏	‏0.32‏
‏88‏	‏San Jose‏	‏Costa Rica‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.23‏	‏69.76‏	‏7.84‏	‏2.11‏	‏1.56‏
‏89‏	‏Buenos Aires‏	‏Argentina‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.13‏	‏69.84‏	‏25.32‏	‏6.81‏	‏5.09‏
‏90‏	‏Brussels‏	‏Belgium‏	‏Partial‏	‏7.09‏	‏75.92‏	‏15.50‏	‏3.83‏	‏2.88‏
‏91‏	‏Santo Domingo‏	‏Dominican Rep.‏	‏Illegal‏	‏6.93‏	‏58.87‏	‏0.67‏	‏0.21‏	‏0.16‏
‏92‏	‏Graz‏	‏Austria‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.84‏	‏74.00‏	‏4.81‏	‏1.22‏	‏0.95‏
‏93‏	‏Budapest‏	‏Hungary‏	‏Illegal‏	‏6.74‏	‏77.26‏	‏7.70‏	‏1.87‏	‏1.48‏
‏94‏	‏Sofia‏	‏Bulgaria‏	‏Illegal‏	‏6.66‏	‏82.65‏	‏12.83‏	‏2.91‏	‏2.33‏
‏95‏	‏Ottawa‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.62‏	‏69.80‏	‏35.43‏	‏9.53‏	‏7.67‏
‏96‏	‏Vancouver‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.40‏	‏69.80‏	‏23.44‏	‏6.30‏	‏5.25‏
‏97‏	‏Sao Paulo‏	‏Brazil‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.38‏	‏64.94‏	‏68.55‏	‏19.81‏	‏16.55‏
‏98‏	‏Rotterdam‏	‏Netherlands‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.33‏	‏73.40‏	‏12.75‏	‏3.26‏	‏2.74‏
‏99‏	‏Ljubljana‏	‏Slovenia‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.32‏	‏80.41‏	‏3.43‏	‏0.80‏	‏0.67‏
‏100‏	‏Barcelona‏	‏Spain‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.23‏	‏78.09‏	‏39.59‏	‏9.51‏	‏8.14‏
‏101‏	‏Montreal‏	‏Canada‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.15‏	‏69.80‏	‏60.52‏	‏16.27‏	‏14.10‏
‏102‏	‏Kiev‏	‏Ukraine‏	‏Partial‏	‏6.00‏	‏74.78‏	‏14.73‏	‏3.70‏	‏3.28‏
‏103‏	‏Abuja‏	‏Nigeria‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.88‏	‏20.63‏	‏7.40‏	‏6.73‏	‏6.10‏
‏104‏	‏Lima‏	‏Peru‏	‏Partial‏	‏5.88‏	‏37.83‏	‏12.28‏	‏6.09‏	‏5.52‏
‏105‏	‏Mexico City‏	‏Mexico‏	‏Partial‏	‏5.87‏	‏65.87‏	‏22.58‏	‏6.43‏	‏5.84‏
‏106‏	‏Cape Town‏	‏South Africa‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.82‏	‏48.80‏	‏2.47‏	‏0.95‏	‏0.87‏
‏107‏	‏Karachi‏	‏Pakistan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.32‏	‏60.70‏	‏135.48‏	‏41.89‏	‏41.95‏
‏108‏	‏Manila‏	‏Philippines‏	‏Illegal‏	‏5.24‏	‏74.27‏	‏2.32‏	‏0.59‏	‏0.60‏
‏109‏	‏Rio de Janeiro‏	‏Brazil‏	‏Partial‏	‏5.11‏	‏64.94‏	‏28.82‏	‏8.33‏	‏8.69‏
‏110‏	‏Mumbai‏	‏India‏	‏Partial‏	‏4.57‏	‏60.39‏	‏89.38‏	‏27.78‏	‏32.38‏
‏111‏	‏New Delhi‏	‏India‏	‏Partial‏	‏4.38‏	‏60.39‏	‏101.20‏	‏31.45‏	‏38.26‏
‏112‏	‏Antwerp‏	‏Belgium‏	‏Partial‏	‏4.29‏	‏75.92‏	‏4.10‏	‏1.01‏	‏1.26‏
‏113‏	‏Astana‏	‏Kazakhstan‏	‏Illegal‏	‏4.22‏	‏39.29‏	‏1.78‏	‏0.85‏	‏1.07‏
‏114‏	‏Montevideo‏	‏Uruguay‏	‏Legal‏	‏4.15‏	‏66.75‏	‏19.54‏	‏5.50‏	‏7.06‏
‏115‏	‏Johannesburg‏	‏South Africa‏	‏Illegal‏	‏4.01‏	‏48.80‏	‏3.76‏	‏1.45‏	‏1.92‏
‏116‏	‏Panama City‏	‏Panama‏	‏Illegal‏	‏3.85‏	‏56.52‏	‏0.81‏	‏0.27‏	‏0.37‏
‏117‏	‏Jakarta‏	‏Indonesia‏	‏Illegal‏	‏3.79‏	‏53.40‏	‏1.92‏	‏0.68‏	‏0.95‏
‏118‏	‏Asuncion‏	‏Paraguay‏	‏Partial‏	‏2.22‏	‏16.00‏	‏0.16‏	‏0.19‏	‏0.46‏
‏119‏	‏Bogota‏	‏Colombia‏	‏Partial‏	‏2.20‏	‏49.44‏	‏15.80‏	‏6.00‏	‏14.53‏
‏120‏	‏Quito‏	‏Ecuador‏	‏Partial‏	‏1.34‏	‏70.39‏	‏0.56‏	‏0.15‏	‏0.60‏

‏Methodology‏

‏Selection of the cities:‏

‏To select the cities for the study, Seedo first looked at the top and bottom cannabis consuming countries around the world. Then they analysed nations where marijuana is partially or completely legal, as well as illegal, and selected the final list of 120 cities in order to best offer a representative comparison of the global cannabis price. ‏

‏Data:‏

● ‏Price per gram, US$ ‏ ‏- Crowdsourced city-level surveys adjusted to World Drug Report 2017 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.‏

● ‏Taxes on Cigarettes, % of the most sold brand‏ ‏ – Taxes as a percentage of the retail price of the most sold brand (total tax). ‏ ‏Source‏ ‏: Appendix 2 of the WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2015.‏

● ‏Annual possible tax collection is calculated in the following way: ‏

● ‏Total_Possible_Tax=Population_City*Prevalence*Avg_Consumption_year_gr*price*tax_level, where:‏

● ‏Population: latest available local population data sources.‏

● ‏Annual Prevalence (percentage of population, having used weed in the year). Source: World Drug Report 2017 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime‏

● ‏Average Consumption of weed per year in grams (people who consumed weed at least once in the previous year). ‏

● ‏Estimation, with the assumption, that one use of weed on average means one joint. ‏

● ‏One joint is assumed to have 0.66 grams of weed as in the paper of Mariani, Brooks, Haney and Levin (2010). ‏

● ‏The distribution of use during the year is assumed to be the same as in Zhao and Harris (2004), where the yearly usage varies from once or twice a year to everyday.‏

● ‏Total Consumption in Tons‏

● ‏Consumption=Population*Prevalence*Consumption_year_gr‏

● ‏Population: latest available local population data sources.‏

● ‏Annual Prevalence (percentage of population, having used weed in the year). ‏ ‏Source‏ ‏: World Drug Report 2017 of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime‏

● ‏Average Consumption of weed per year in grams (people who consumed weed at least once in the previous year).‏

● ‏Estimation, with the assumption, that one use of weed on average means one joint. ‏

● ‏One joint is assumed to have 0.66 grams of weed as in the paper of Mariani, Brooks, Haney and Levin (2010). ‏

● ‏The distribution of use during the year is assumed to be the same as in Zhao and Harris (2004), where the yearly usage varies from once or twice a year to everyday. ‏

● ‏US tax level ‏ ‏- Average tax level in the states of US where weed is legal: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Includes retail sales taxes, state taxes, local taxes and excise taxes.‏

● ‏Legality‏

○ ‏Legal, if possession and selling for recreational and medical use is legal.‏

○ ‏Illegal, if possession and selling for recreational and medical use is illegal.‏

○ ‏Partial, if ‏

■ ‏Possession of small amounts is decriminalised (criminal penalties lessened, fines and regulated permits may still apply)‏

■ ‏OR medicinal use legal‏

■ ‏OR possession is legal, selling illegal‏

■ ‏OR scientific use legal‏

■ ‏OR usage allowed in restricted areas (e.g. homes or coffee shops)‏

■ ‏OR local laws may apply to legality (e.g. illegal at federal level, legal at state level)‏

‏First quote: Based on New York City Council’s free lunch initiative which began in September 2017, with 1.1 million public school children, at a cost of $1.75 per child per day.‏

Politics

Contraband Tobacco solution requires more than Federal legislation ‘tinkering’

October 21, 2014 The Silo 5 Comments

SOLVING ILLICIT TOBACCCO A National Strategy There is no debate that the global trade in contraband tobacco has far-reaching implications for society. Too much evidence exists today to deny that the black market in tobacco draws in the involvement of a host of problems for public safety and national security. Complicating the picture is the inevitable Canadian debate relative to which level of government has control over what activities and in so doing responsibility for quelling the illicit tobacco industry falls between the cracks.

The reality of the debate is much more visceral when viewed through the lenses of aboriginal rights and commercial responsibilities. Competing “constituencies” in the debate continue to pursue support by staking out scientific, social and moral positions on the smuggling and selling of untaxed and unregulated tobacco products. The Ontario Convenience Store Association points fingers at the Canadian First Nations as the source of contraband tobacco off reserve. Law Enforcement warns of the role of Organized Crime – up to 175 gangs and the Italian Mafioso too! Band leaders on reserve say that it is their right to deal in tobacco all they want so long as it helps the economic prosperity of the community. Ontario farmers blame the McGuinty Liberal Government for “ripping them off” for 69 cents for the tobacco pounds they agreed not to grow pursuant to the Tobacco Transition Program of 2008. All in all, things are a mess!

The provisions of Bill C10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco), which was sent to the Senate for “sober second thought” has passed Third Reading and awaits proclamation. The Bill will pass but it will leave a sour taste in the mouths of some of the Bill’s “constituencies”, including First Nations. During the Senate “consultation” process, several First Nations leaders decried the flawed consultation process with Canada’s First Nations.

Despite the progress against contraband tobacco with Bill C-10 from a law enforcement point of view, many of the conditions that support the illicit trade in tobacco remain. Save for high profile busts like the “Sweet Dreams” takedown last spring in Montreal that netted the Sicilian Mafia connection, the slow burn of the illicit tobacco trade has caused convenience store closures, stripped billions of dollars from federal and provincial tax coffers, made criminals out of law abiding farmers, and has opened new routes to marketing cigarettes to children on school grounds.

A National Approach

The solution to the many problems associated with contraband tobacco require more than just tinkering with federal legislation yet again. The complexities of the issue require a complete re-thinking of the problem of illicit tobacco and how best to deal with it.

A truly novel and potentially much more effective way of dealing with all tobacco regulation in Canada would be to appoint a National Tobacco Ombudsman (NTO) with sufficient investigative and search and seizure powers to greatly reduce or even eliminate the prevalence of illicit tobacco in Canada. To avoid any constitutional confusion, the NTO would be specifically national in scope but multi-jurisdictional in its powers and therefore a uniquely derived capability that can cross federal/provincial/First Nations lines to arrive at practical solutions.

Tobacco and Competing Constituencies

When it comes to a serious attempt to address the problems associated with the illicit tobacco trade in Canada, the solution needs to focus on four areas that need fixing. All four need to be dealt with rationally and objectively and potentially all by a properly selected and resourced NTO.

Law Enforcement

To date in Canada the RCMP has been afforded the mandate and financial resources to combat contraband tobacco. Unfortunately, the Mounties have been sorely inadequate to the task. Despite RCMP press releases that take credit for illicit tobacco busts, two realities remain. First, most of the Mounties believe that stopping the flow of contraband tobacco is an insult to their mandate as Canada’s federal police force. Instead of trying to convince the RCMP that this is important work for them to pursue, it would be better to shift law enforcement to local and provincial police forces and provide them with the manpower and financial resources they need to investigate and pursue offenders.

Besides pursuing organized crime groups and chasing terrorism-related financial networks, there are many other, less sexy law enforcement activities that need to be attended to in order to fully address the contraband problem. For one example, enforcing the regulations that control the production and distribution of tobacco are provincial matters but require the monitoring and investigative expertise that comes with experienced and trained law enforcement personnel.

A NTO should be given the mandate to define the roles and resources of local and provincial police forces to support the enforcement of tobacco growing and distribution legislation and regulations at both the provincial and federal levels. Moreover, should the provisions of Bill C-10 (or something like it) come into effect, sworn peace officers from local and provincial forces will need to be coordinated in training and procedure.

First Nations – Rights and Fairness

A First Nations Chief stated that Bill C-10 effectively allows the Canadian Government to enter the 6 Nations of the Grand River or Tyendinaga, both in Ontario, with no-knock raids, flash bangs, police dogs and RCMP in riot gear if we have in our possession unstamped tobacco products. In both the Akwesasne and Kahnawake reserves in Quebec there are no less than 50 illicit cigarette factories. First Nations here have long served notice to both legislative authorities and law enforcement that they are most unwelcome. Both of these reserves continue to produce high volumes of contraband tobacco that continue to be distributed across Canada.

Growers – the 69 cent solution

Farmers in Southern Ontario believe fervently that they have been “screwed” by the Ontario Government. This screwing took place when Premiere McGuinty reneged on a deal, as part of the Federal Government’s Tobacco Transition Program of 2008, to pay farmers sixty-nine cents for every pound of tobacco they would not grow in future. Some of the farmers lost their farms; others found ways to circumvent the deal – take the money from the feds and continue to grow tobacco for sale to the black market.

The NTO would not permit this fiasco to develop. Fairness would have dictated a process for negotiating the buyout such that all parties would be agreeable to the outcome and all parties would respect the terms of activity or payment. To give the deal teeth, the NTO would have the resources to monitor the results of the agreement, including payments promised and behaviour modified.

Taxation Rationalization

It is widely known that the infamous U.S. mobster, Al Capone, was convicted for tax evasion in order to put him away for life. Present day mobsters are involved in using contraband proceeds to engage in other serious criminal activities such as drug, gun and human trafficking and terrorism funding.

Studies by reputable think tanks such as the US Mackinac Institute have determined that there is a sweet spot in government taxation levels that represents the most effective price deterrent to smoking and the point where tax hikes drive consumers – especially young consumers – to buy contraband cigarettes.

A NTO would have the ability to provide much wisdom and hopefully much influence in advising governments at all levels how to set tax policy and rates within the context of knowledgeable consequences. The other important aspect that would be performed by the NTO is to ensure harmonization across jurisdictions which would eliminate “spatial arbitrage” between jurisdictional lines.

Action Required

The concept of a National Tobacco Ombudsman requires immediate discussion and very near term implementation so that tax bases can be restored with money now flowing to the criminal elements in Canada and abroad.

Ombudsmen are about protecting the rights of the public. A NTO with criminal investigative powers led by a credible Ombudsman would protect the legitimate interests of the First Nations communities, provide law enforcement with the tools to rid our communities of organized crime groups, provide guidelines for the orderly growing of tobacco on or off reserves, and stop the lust for tax grabs at the expense of public safety. This Ombudsman would be answerable to Parliament and would not be buried in the bureaucracy with hierarchical structures that have been established to protect and avoid issues of significant importance. Contraband tobacco in Canada continues to be a multi-billion dollar rip off that fuels organized crime and is a significant threat to national security as the illicit trade moves with fluidity across national and international borders.

The establishment of the NTO requires unwavering leadership, transparency and accountability at all levels of government, within commercial activity involving tobacco, and within First Nations’ communities. For the Silo, Edward R. Myers

Supplemental– Tobacco.org home to tobacco news and information

In England, convenience store owners (called Publicans) are charged and serve jail time for selling illegal cigarettes and tobacco

Canada's 'biggest little blogspace'