171–180 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, I'm guessing most of the hard line conservatives advocating mass deportation actually don't smoke pot at all.
You're right, they're much more likely to have a prescription opiate habit.
Easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ;)
I think that the fact that nothing changed is literally proof that it is bad law. If prohibiting something doesn't help anything, even if it doesn't hurt anything, then we shouldn't prohibit it. I would like to hear an counter example, I can't think of one.
I would express the same sentiment about illegal immigrants. This is to all the people who support Donald Trump's rhetoric about deporting all 11 million undocumented immigrants. These people fled the drug gangs and violence that our war on drugs helped create (think fleeing ISIS) and came to work jobs no one else would take and make a better life for their family. Yes technically they broke a law. If you're going to…
One thing I find worrying about arguments in favor of illegal immigration/very lax immigration policies is how easily it can come across as being in favor of indentured servitude and having a lower class to support the upper class. We say they do jobs "nobody else wants to do" for suboptimal wages, and they do it right because they fear what'll happen if they don't. And we proudly say that they contribute by paying t…
You do them no favors by keeping them out because they never had access to "benefits" in the first place
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Which means more money to invest in the country fixing issues, hopefully, instead of being wasted on mansions for corrupt politicians or spent recklessly. For example, issues that cause crime. Wouldn't that be nice? Or at least advancement of science and engineering. Someone gets to fund the space program.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ;)
"No change" alone is worth legalizing though: because it means you can scale down the militarization of police lead by the war on drugs. It won't happen overnight, it might not bring savings and it will be resisted, but it can result in a significant cultural change that will help in other areas ("black lives matter" and so on).
I would express the same sentiment about illegal immigrants. This is to all the people who support Donald Trump's rhetoric about deporting all 11 million undocumented immigrants. These people fled the drug gangs and violence that our war on drugs helped create (think fleeing ISIS) and came to work jobs no one else would take and make a better life for their family. Yes technically they broke a law. If you're going to…
I actually think it would be a great idea to explicitly start a company that only wanted to hire immigrants especially Syrian refugees: - they're more motivated (they have people lives depending on them making money and sending it back, they actually want to move here rather than just being born here) - they're often richer (i.e. they don't come to live off the state) than those that stay in their own country as they…
for me the biggest reason to have gange legal is it frees policing resources up from processing fairly ridiculous prosecutions of people dealing in what is basically just plant material.
so while it is nice to see there is no real impact on "other crime" the fact they missed the impact of freeing up resources directly related to weed is a major ommission.
and also.
god damn you americans pay a lot for it. $250 an ounce. that's ridiculous. like more than three times the price I used to pay as a teenager for prime amsterdam skunk.
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…
Canberran here - not to detract from your point, but possession of cannabis plants here isn't legal, it's merely "decriminalised", which in this case means for small quantities that are for personal use, police have the power to issue a "Simple Cannabis Offence Notice" which can be discharged by payment of a fine similar to a traffic ticket. The plants will still be confiscated.
With "hard" drugs, things are different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the fact that nothing changed is literally proof that it is bad law. If prohibiting something doesn't help anything, even if it doesn't hurt anything, then we shouldn't prohibit it. I would like to hear an counter example, I can't think of one.
I agree, the law just makes things worse by increasing the number of people we call criminals. However as a counter example, even if the murder rate didn't change by de-criminalizing murder, I'd still argue that there should be a law against it.
In a legal system whose premise is that one should be free to do anything so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others, it it consistent to legalise pot and keep murder illegal.