Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

cato.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 274 posts

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#31

Post by pjlegato »

fuzzywalrus wrote: post #4
thecrow1213 wrote: post #2

Thanks for sharing, very interesting stuff. The more unbiased studies we have like this the better.

I wouldn't refer to the Cato Institute as anything but biased, as it's a neo-con libertarian think tank funded by the Koch Brothers but this particular study is fascinating simply because it IS a neo-con libertarian think tank funded by the Koch Brothers.

How is that fascinating? Libertarianism as an ideology is overtly based on the theory that everyone ought to have extreme and full personal freedom to do whatever they like, so long as it does not affect anyone else. They have long advocated the full legalization of marijuana and all other drugs.

Neoconservativism and libertarianism are very different ideologies, by the way. Perhaps the out-group homogenity bias is at work? [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#32

Post by foobarian »

s_m_t wrote: post #8

New rule suggestion. You must argue at least one flaw in the study or article before pointing out the source may be biased.

I like to think of it as the US justice system. I no more expect the Cato institute to argue for outlawing marijuana use than I would expect a prosecutor to drop the case against an axe murderer with 10 witnesses and DNA evidence.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#33

Post by pjlegato »

existencebox wrote: post #25
bendykstra wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet has made it very easy to shield ourselves from the arguments of people with differing views. Disclaimers such as this are just another way for us to filter what we read and further isolate ourselves ideologically. Who cares who said it so long as what they said has merit? Conversely, a healthy skepticism is always valuable, regardless of the source.

Because who is saying something colors the merit it brings. And as a healthy skeptic, knowing the direction to look for potential bias _does_ help orient my skepticism and find potential ulterior motives within the infinite space of "all ulterior motives". I certainly was asking myself "I wonder who was backing this" while reading it. (Don't take me the wrong way, I absolutely agree with you with respect to not filte…

> Because who is saying something colors the merit it brings

Not at all; this is the "ad hominem" logical fallacy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

The claims being made are objectively true or false entirely independently of any personal attributes of the person making them. In other words, who is saying something is entirely irrelevant to the merit of what they are saying.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#34

Post by brbsix »

newjersey wrote: post #20
ypeterholmes wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. By skipping over the huge $$$ profits this article reveals itself to be pretty disingenuous.

I think we shouldn't base our arguments for legalization on tax revenues. I hope the tax revenue will go down as more states (I hope) will legalize. I oppose the use of sin taxes to fund our government. I hope most people would agree with me on that.

Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#35

Post by rayiner »

hackuser wrote: post #6

Know your source: Cato is an advocate for libertarianism, at least as envisioned by its funders, founded in part by Charles Koch, and still heavily funded and controlled by him (and I think by his brother). I don't mean that in a partisan way; you might love them, hate them, or not care one way or the other, but it's always useful to know who is talking.

In this case, libertarianism led them to the right idea long before legalization was popular: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lets-quit-drug-w... (a 1988 NYT article by the Cato Inatitute executive).

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#36

Post by BurningFrog »

hackuser wrote: post #6

Know your source: Cato is an advocate for libertarianism, at least as envisioned by its funders, founded in part by Charles Koch, and still heavily funded and controlled by him (and I think by his brother). I don't mean that in a partisan way; you might love them, hate them, or not care one way or the other, but it's always useful to know who is talking.

And who are you then?

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#37

Post by illumin8 »

ypeterholmes wrote: post #13
simplexion wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you ignore the whole tax revenue part.

Exactly. By skipping over the huge $$$ profits this article reveals itself to be pretty disingenuous.

They don't skip over this; it just isn't called out in the summary:

"One area where legal marijuana has reaped unexpectedly large benefits is state tax revenue. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon all impose significant excise taxes on recreational marijuana, along with standard state sales taxes, other local taxes, and licensing fees. As seen in Figure 25, Colorado collects well over $10 million per month from recreational marijuana alone.91 In 2015 the state generated a total of $135 million in recreational marijuana revenue, $35 million of which was earmarked for school construction projects. These figures are above some pre-legalization forecasts, although revenue growth was disappointingly sluggish during the first few months of sales.92 A similar story has unfolded in Washington, as illustrated in Figure 26, where recreational marijuana generated approximately $70 million in tax revenue in the first year of sales93—double the original revenue forecast.94 Oregon only began taxing recreational marijuana in January 2016, so data are still preliminary; however, state officials report revenues of $14.9 million so far, well above the initial estimate of $2.0 million to $3.0 million for the entire calendar year95 The tax revenues in these states may decline."

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#38

Post by deelowe »

datashovel wrote: post #3

tldr; "The data so far provide little support for the strong claims about legalization made by either opponents or supporters."

Except that putting people in jail and fining them is cruel and we shouldnt do it without a really fucking good reason.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#39

Post by bsbechtel »

hackuser wrote: post #6

Know your source: Cato is an advocate for libertarianism, at least as envisioned by its funders, founded in part by Charles Koch, and still heavily funded and controlled by him (and I think by his brother). I don't mean that in a partisan way; you might love them, hate them, or not care one way or the other, but it's always useful to know who is talking.

Sometimes a heavily biased source is the only one that is willing to discuss an issue, or bring it forward. Consider it the opposite of an appeal to authority argument, but bias of a source doesn't necessarily discredit the argument.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#40

Post by clock_tower »

tw04 wrote: post #27
hackuser wrote: post #6

Know your source: Cato is an advocate for libertarianism, at least as envisioned by its funders, founded in part by Charles Koch, and still heavily funded and controlled by him (and I think by his brother). I don't mean that in a partisan way; you might love them, hate them, or not care one way or the other, but it's always useful to know who is talking.

Libertarianism, as envisioned by the Koch brothers, is AMAZING when you're rich. You simply remove all government functions that protect the poor from the wealthy, and re-create feudal Europe. What's not to love???

Honestly, I think the poor had more rights (or at least had an easier time of having their rights honored) in the Middle Ages than they would under libertarianism. Look up _Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages_ or _A History of Private Life_ if you're curious.
Post reply on HN