The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations • Hacker News Board

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#81

Post by gozur88 » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:18 AM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #38

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.

We don't put people in jail for pot, at least not here in California. We don't have the room. Officially in this state 0.3% of inmates are in for "possession for sale" and "sales" of marijuana. They don't even list simple possession.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information...

It's true federal penitentiaries have a larger percentage of inmates in for simple possession, but the federal prison population is a tiny fraction of the number of people incarcerated by the states.

And while I don't have any evidence to back it up, the comparatively small number of people in federal prison for MJ possession suggests they're either the most unlucky people on the planet or they're really there for some other reason even if the government could only make the drug charge stick. Think Al Capone and tax evasion.

tl;dr: Legalizing pot isn't going to affect the prison population very much.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#82

Post by hackuser » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:20 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #28

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.

The study seems to be making a sincere effort to be objective and evidence-based, with proper citations and such. In my opinion, it largely succeeds. The fact that it was partially funded by someone I may not like is irrelevant (the ad hominem fallacy). That's the entire purpose of the scientific method -- to bypass the ad hominem arguments you have made, to seperate the data and the claims from questions of whether…

> The study seems to be making a sincere effort to be objective and evidence-based, with proper citations and such.

Without commenting on this particular study, I'll point out something I've learned from long experience reading think tank material:

Some think tanks are created to provide 'intellectual cover' and credibility (in the eyes of people like you and me, who care about the things you listed) to whatever ideas their political masters desire, regardless of the ideas' true legitimacy. This isn't a conspiracy theory, but a well-known (in political circles) tool in the political toolkit. And they do it in exactly the ways you identify, by appearing to make "a sincere effort to be objective and evidence-based, with proper citations and such." Unless we have time to check the citations and expertise to evaluate the quality of the citations and the arguments, we have little chance of detecting it.

Other tools are used to persuade other audiences: Anonymous, slandering robocalls are used for some (probably not you and me), blog posts for some, newspaper op-eds for some, astroturfing on Internet forums for others; some think tanks (not all) are just another tool for another audience.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#83

Post by gcb0 » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:21 AM UTC

bendykstra wrote: post #21

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.

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.

actually it have achieve that in the worst way possible: making it easier to be surround only by the little echo chamber you choose.

see how most tailored "news" aggregators such as facebook or yahoo or reddit will mostly show you only what you want to read.

its perfect for the fear mongering ways of the two party system.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#84

Post by mrcsparker » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:26 AM UTC

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.

These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty.

Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be.

The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#85

Post by Pinckney » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:31 AM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #81

deelowe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We don't put people in jail for pot, at least not here in California. We don't have the room. Officially in this state 0.3% of inmates are in for "possession for sale" and "sales" of marijuana. They don't even list simple possession. http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information... It's true federal penitentiaries have a larger percentage of inmates in for simple possession, but the federal prison popu…

If the government couldn't make other charges stick, they shouldn't be in jail.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#86

Post by megous » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:33 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #60

ksherlock wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest beneficiaries of decriminalized marijuana are the people who are no longer criminals for smoking a joint.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree marijuana should be legalized. I was simply commenting on the ridiculousness of the Koch brothers version of "libertarianism". It reminds me of the people calling the nordic countries "socialist" (remind me which means of production the state has forcefully taken in Sweden). Words have meaning, and bastardizing them annoys me.

Income tax on companies. That's income that would possibly lead to capital creation/accumulation - and was redirected to other uses by the centralized decision making of the government. I think that counts as "means of production the state has forcefully taken in Sweden".

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#87

Post by timv » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:35 AM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #80

FuckOffNeemo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote nails my sentiment on the matter of drug legalisation. The conversation shown here within HN is fascinating, from an outliers perspective. The benefits and effects of the legalisation of Marijuana I would assume, have been well documented by now though the quantity of these reports, I would assume to be small in number. Surely it's a benefit if the number of these reports and articles were increased. Surel…

you failed to read the one paragraph conclusion. both pro and cons arguments were wrong. absolutely nothing relevant has changed. crime didnt go up nor down. neither did taxes. etc. nada. also, ted is only relevant to rich pot heads ;)

Actually, though the article's summary claimed to find no noticeable change, the section on taxes says:

One area where legal marijuana has reaped unexpectedly large benefits is state tax revenue.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#88

Post by fatman13gg » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

gregschlom wrote: post #11

This is really interesting in light of the current political discussions: "Until 1913 marijuana was legal throughout the United States under both state and federal law. Beginning with California in 1913 and Utah in 1914, however, states began outlawing marijuana, and by 1930, 30 states had adopted marijuana prohibition. Those state-level prohibitions stemmed largely from anti-immigrant sentiment and in particular rac…

Some liberal view on the issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGSzj7ztszI

Though, the video sort of failed to elaborate more on science evidence than just death tolls etc.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#89

Post by elgenie » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #64

pjlegato wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The claims may be objectively true. But I can easily make many objective statements which are true and which are either meaningless, or seem to point out things that need more context to understand. Depending on which side of the argument I prefer, I can choose only the true sentences that seem to support that side and ignore everything else. This is done by media all the time. That's why it's worth to know the bias…

All these are examples of claims that are misleading because they're misleading, not because of who is making the claim. You can of course read the claims made by the article with a more critical eye, but identifying the author doesn't automagically lift the responsibility of coming up with a refutation.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#90

Post by deelowe » Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

jocro wrote: post #61

deelowe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think that was within the scope of the study at all. Not saying that I disagree, but it's not an answer or to any of the questions being asked, and certainly not a refute to any of the study's attempts at answers.

I was responding to the parent.

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

Many supporters, like myself, don't need data. It's wrong to put people in jail and fine them without reason. If there are no significant changes after legalization, then prohibition should be ended. There's no clear benefit to society and enforcement clearly harms the individuals impacted by these laws.