Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> product gets them high as they used to ge rom smoking triple s <br /> <br /> grade-A buds in the late 70's.36 Graph # 8 represents this <br /> <br /> reported rise in THC. <br /> <br /> B. Analysis. <br /> <br /> Graph # 4 examines the price per ounce, the number of plants <br /> <br /> seized and the non-county funding for this program between the <br /> <br /> years 1980 and 1996. While the number of plants seized peaks in <br /> <br /> 1987, the price does not rise appreciatively until 1993. Between <br /> <br /> 1993 and 1996, the price drops considerably, the funding is at a <br /> <br /> constant, and the numbers of plants seized at a constant 10w. <br /> <br /> If we only had the graph up to 1993, we could conclude that <br /> <br /> this program was a success at raising the price and thus <br /> <br /> restricting the supply of marijuana on the Big Island to the <br /> <br /> wealthy. Up until 1993, the price rises dramatically, the <br /> <br /> numbers of plants decline, while the funding rises to a high <br /> <br /> constant level. We could reasonably conclude that such a rise in <br /> <br /> price was due to the accumulated efforts, over many years, of the <br /> <br /> program. <br /> <br /> From 1993 to 1996, the price shows a dramatic drop while the <br /> <br /> others remain roughly constant. <br /> <br /> To what can we attribute this dramatic decline in <br /> <br /> productivity of this program? Clearly, in this period, the <br /> <br /> program is seizing fewer plants, spending more money, and <br /> <br /> achieving less restriction of supply than ever before. Indeed, <br /> <br /> measured in constant 1995 dollars, the supply is as available and <br /> <br /> the price as low as in 1980. Since most prices of most <br /> <br /> <br /> 10 <br />