Tag Archives: reform

Culture

Quality Over Quantity: How Canada’s Immigration System Can Catch Up

Leave a comment


Canada’s immigration point system is designed to select skilled immigrants who have the potential to contribute to the country’s economic growth and meet its evolving skills needs. However, Canada faces challenges in fully leveraging increased immigration levels to enhance the well-being of Canadians due to weaknesses in capital investment and a quantity/quality trade-off in selecting economic immigrants. Furthermore, recent reforms may work at cross purposes to this goal. They include category-based selection that targets low-paying occupations, which can discourage capital investment, and a recent surge in the number of temporary residents in low-wage jobs that also may have adverse effects on the quality of potential candidates for permanent residency.
 

This study compares skilled immigration selection policy in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK, with the objective of identifying key areas for improvement in Canadian policy. The skilled immigration point systems in Canada and Australia share some similarities, with both prioritizing a two-step immigration process, placing an emphasis on English proficiency and workforce age, and requiring pre-migration credential and English proficiency assessments. However, the two countries differ mainly in their strictness of criteria and their emphasis on occupational and language skills. Furthermore, Australia has shown more agility and creativity in its skilled migration reforms. Reforms in the UK and New Zealand have also put them ahead in the competition for talent.
 

Based on this international comparison, the author makes recommendations for improvement. They include: 1) Setting a Minimum Points Threshold for Eligibility. As it is, Canada imposes no minimum points threshold for eligibility in its Express Entry points-based system. 2) Considering a Pre-admission Earnings Factor. Studies show the importance of pre-immigration earnings in predicting immigrants’ outcomes after arrival. The UK, New Zealand and Australia include this factor. 3) Boosting Standards under the Language Requirement. Official language skills are as important in predicting the initial earnings of principal applicants admitted under Canada’s Express Entry system as pre-immigration Canadian work experience, and even more important than educational level and age at the time of immigration. 4) Raising Business Immigration Numbers. Canada faces the challenge of weak business investment but is failing to select business immigrants with entrepreneurial skills, putting it at a disadvantage compared to competitors like Australia and the UK.

The author thanks Tingting Zhang, Charles DeLand, Rosalie Wyonch, Charles Beach, Jodi Kasten, Mikal Skuterud and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

Read the full report here.

For the Silo, Parisa Mahboubi/C.D. Howe Institute.

Parisa Mahboubi

Parisa Mahboubi

Parisa Mahboubi is a Senior Policy Analyst and leads the C.D. Howe Institute’s human capital policy program. Her research interest focuses on social policy with a concentration on demographic, skills, education, and labour market concerns. In addition to authoring research studies, she regularly writes a column for the Globe and Mail’s business section.

Finance

Reform WTO And Resist Protectionism, Say Commonwealth Trade Ministers

1 Comment

Trade ministers from across the Commonwealth today made a commitment to resist all forms of protectionism, and to work urgently together towards reforming the World Trade Organisation, which sets the global rules for international trade.

Following a meeting in London, ministers from the 53 Commonwealth member countries declared their collective support for free trade in a transparent, inclusive, fair and open multilateral trading system, with the WTO as its core institution.

They agreed that any WTO reform should take into account the views of all members, underlining the special circumstances of the developing and the least developed countries, as well as small and vulnerable economies, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

group pic ctmm small.jpg

Ministers also endorsed an action plan designed to boost trade among their countries to at least $2 trillion by 2030, through the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda. Intra-Commonwealth trade is projected to reach $700 billion by next year.

Commonwealth Secretary-General Patricia Scotland said:

“The multilateral trading system is the only way for our countries, as diverse as they are, to trade in a predictable, stable, transparent and fair environment. While the global trading system may be far from perfect, it is the surest pathway towards eradicating poverty.

“Building on this, the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda will help businesses, including micro, small and medium sized enterprises, to plug into global trade networks and benefit from world trade. In this way, intra-Commonwealth trade offers immense opportunities to contribute to reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development.”

The Chair of the meeting, UK Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade Liz Truss said:

“The UK along with its Commonwealth partners has today clearly set out its commitment to fight against protectionism. We must work together to promote free trade and reform the multilateral system to make sure it works for every nation, small or large.

“Trade has the power to drive growth, jobs and opportunities – it is an essential tool in the fight against extreme poverty and insecurity.

“By sharing experience across the diverse Commonwealth community, we can help to break down existing barriers to trade which currently prevent businesses in all our countries from trading successfully.”

Ministers called for an end to the impasse regarding the WTO’s Appellate Body – a key panel of judges, whose rulings help resolve the trade disputes.

They highlighted the need to update WTO rules to address new challenges and opportunities, including e-commerce. They pledged support for a global agreement that would prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing by the end of 2019.

In their communiqué issued from the meeting, ministers also welcomed progress made under the Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda, including the work of active country-led ‘clusters’ focused on five areas: digital, physical, regulatory, supply side and business-to-business connectivity.

The outcomes of the meeting will inform leaders’ discussions at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kigali, Rwanda in June 2020. For the Silo, Jarrod Barker.

Read the full communiqué

Culture

Study Reveals Cost Of Cannabis And Industry Growth Worldwide

Leave a comment

2018 Weed Index Study reveals the cost of marijuana and highlights the number of grow and head shops in 120 cities around the world:

  • With a total of 156, Los Angeles, USA has the most headshops.
  • Madrid, Spain has the largest amount of growshops, with a total of 68.
  • Tokyo, Japan has the most expensive cannabis, at 32.66 USD per gram, while 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 legalising 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.

 

Berlin, Germany, 20/04/2018 – ABCD, a data-driven media campaign outlet, has released new data which reveals the number of marijuana head and growshops in 120 cities around the world. This research, which builds on the 2018 Cannabis Price Index released earlier this year, reveals which locations around the world are ready to embrace cannabis legalisation. The aim of the 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 legalization. By including extra data on the number of head and growshops in each city, this new research can be utilized to indicate which cities are prepared for an imminent cannabis reform, while also highlighting which cities are in opposition of marijuana legalisation.

 

The initial study began 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, ABCD 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.

ABCD decided to conduct the extra research in order to to further the discussion around the medical and recreational use of cannabis, and the potential industry and business opportunities that would follow legalisation. By identifying the number of headshops as well as growshops, this study serves as an indicator to a city’s existing cannabis infrastructure and willingness to accept such reform on a larger scale. As an indicating factor, the more head shops and grow shops a city has, the more positive their state’s and general public’s attitude towards the cannabis-related industry is likely to be.

The table below reveals a sample of the results for the 13 US cities featured in the study:

 

# 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 Headshops Growshops
1 Washington, DC Partial 18.08 47.51 20.96 6.18 20 8
2 Chicago Partial 11.46 119.61 52.77 24.54 91 10
3 Philadelphia Partial 11.30 68.37 30.16 14.22 41 3
4 Boston Legal 11.01 28.59 12.61 6.10 49 4
5 New York Partial 10.76 354.48 156.40 77.44 59 7
6 Dallas Partial 10.03 51.01 22.5 11.95 80 6
7 Houston Partial 10.03 89.13 39.32 20.89 125 14
8 Phoenix Partial 9.35 58.26 25.71 14.65 72 9
9 Miami Partial 9.27 16.24 7.16 4.12 67 25
10 San Francisco Legal 9.27 30.94 13.65 7.85 61 3
11 Los Angeles Legal 8.14 124.88 55.10 36.06 153 46
12 Denver Legal 7.79 20.53 9.06 6.20 61 21
13 Seattle Legal 7.58 20.59 9.08 6.39 46 10

 

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

 

The table Below shows the top 10 cities with the most growshops:

 

# City Country Legality Growshops
1 Madrid Spain Partial 68
2 Buenos Aires Argentina Partial 48
3 Los Angeles USA Legal 46
4 Toronto Canada Partial 37
5 Melbourne Australia Partial 31
6 Miami USA Partial 25
7 London UK Illegal 23
8 Barcelona Spain Partial 23
9 Denver USA Legal 21
10 Berlin Germany Partial 20

 

The table Below shows the top 10 cities with the most headshops:

 

# City Country Legality Headshops
1 Los Angeles USA Legal 156
2 Houston USA Partial 125
3 Chicago USA Partial 91
4 Dallas USA Partial 80
5 Phoenix USA Partial 72
6 Miami USA Partial 67
7 San Francisco USA Legal 61
8 Denver USA Legal 61
9 New York USA Partial 59
10 Boston USA Legal 49

 

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 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.

 

Further findings:

 

  • Shanghai, China has a large population of 24.15 million, has however no headshops or growshops in the city, underlining a resistance against cannabis reform.
  • On average, the status of legality (e.g. Legal, Partial or Illegal) coincides with the amount of headshops and growshops found in each city. The favourable the laws, the better the cannabis infrastructure
  • 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.

 

Source for data and graphics- http://weedindex.io 

 

 

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.
  • Growshops – Sourced via Google Maps Listings 2018
  • Headshops – Sourced via Google Maps Data Listings 2018
  • 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.