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

201–210 of 274 posts

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#201

Post by mSparks »

saiya-jin wrote: post #195
mSparks wrote: post #178

it would of been nice is they contrasted the "no rise in serious crime" with the number of drug related arrests. 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 resour…

prime amsterdam stuff in official coffee shops is pretty expensive these days. it's also so powerful that unless you are regular die hard pothead, it might be too much to handle and enjoy.

http://www.amsterdamcannabis.co.uk/amsterdam-coffee-shops/ The general prices range from about €6,- (£5.13) to €11,- (£9.41) for a gram of weed or hash.

->28.3495 grams in an ounce

Prices in the coffee shops range from about €168/$188 to €280/$340 an ounce.

So yeah - gotta agree with that "pretty expensive" in the same way US at $250 an ounce is expensive.

iirc we used to pay around $50 for a half ounce of green (Been a decade or two since I bought any though), or 9 ounces of resin was $325

I was in Egypt a month ago or so and they were trying their luck at $25 a gram.

I wonder how long until wholesale prices pop up in the commodities indices :p

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#202

Post by coldtea »

redwood wrote: post #196
gcb0 wrote: post #80

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 ;)

That's partially because it has not been legalized in a non-nearly-exclusively-caucasian state yet. Meaning it hasn't been legalized in a state where there are many marijuana arrests. I'm not exageratting... I've never met a caucasian person who's been arrested for marijuana posession. Never . And yet here in NYC alone, on the order of 50,000 people (almost exclusively of color) are arrested every year for marijuana…

>That's partially because it has not been legalized in a non-nearly-exclusively-caucasian state yet.

Wish that was also true for TED.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#203

Post by gravypod »

dragonwriter wrote: post #134
hackuser wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> came to work jobs no one else would take > If there are jobs that are structured such that only an illegal immigrant, who by definition exists outside the normal labor pool and its protections, will take Typically, that statement also refers to jobs that are perfectly legal, but most Americans wouldn't take anyway. For example, many of the experienced people reading this wouldn't drive a cab, deliver pizzas, work…

I've done almost all of those things before (general maintenance rather than construction, and I've never driven a cab) -- including retail sales at an electronics chain (Radio Shack before Best Buy was the thing) -- and would again if I didn't have better prospects elsewhere (with my experience and expectations of the future labor market, I don't expect to need to do any of those things again, but that's a different…

Someone I know from the UK used to quit his job if he got fed up and then become a package courier.

   "I'd say sod it and drive around the country side for a few months."

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#204

Post by [deleted] »

madshiva wrote: post #173
betenoire wrote: post #101

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.

"nothing changed" is wrong. They expect to have crime rate lower in few years?? How many jobs was added with this?plenty... How many money they made? plenty...

[deleted]

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#205

Post by coldtea »

icc97 wrote: post #164
betenoire wrote: post #101

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.

Yes, but this counter-argument assumes the two things (pot and murder) are equally bad, or at least, assumes both are bad.

Which is the whole point of the inquiry, we can't start taking it for granted -- whereas for murder, it's a pretty safe bet by now, 3 millennia plus into written human history.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#206

Post by baldfat »

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #200
baldfat wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pot is different then Cocaine and Heroine in terms of impact on society and the economy. Can't search for support for the reality, but several cities that had drug free zones had closed them due to harm that is done to the individual and those around them.

A counter-example is Portugal, that had a severe heroin problem in the 80s and solved it by decriminalizing all drugs. It is true that cocaine and heroin are very serious drugs that can do a lot of harm. It is also true that prohibition and the prosecution of users only seems to make matters worse. For some scientific evidence in cartoon format :) : http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/

Drugs are still illegal and dealers and traffickers are still put in prison. People as user are brought to specific court called "Discussion Panels." Repeated users are given various forms of treatment. Recreation users can also have community service and fines.

Never work in USA though since the Police work with the Healthcare system and so if a offender stops going to treatment at their doctor's office the office calls the Police and the Police give notice to the user. They also give clean needles (could happen in certain states) and crack pipes (never).

There is definitly something there that could help in US but I can't imagine in my lifetime anything even close to this happening across the country. Personally I think we do focus on users more then dealers for police action and I wish we could get to a point where we can stop the neighborhood dealers working in almost every neighborhood in my city.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#207

Post by coldtea »

baldfat wrote: post #194
runesoerensen wrote: post #5

> The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents. No kidding - let me just quote Kofi Annan's excellent essay on the subject (published a couple of months before the UN failed to course correct at UNGASS 2016): "Nowhere is this divorce between rhetoric and reality more evident than in the formulation of global drug policies, w…

Pot is different then Cocaine and Heroine in terms of impact on society and the economy. Can't search for support for the reality, but several cities that had drug free zones had closed them due to harm that is done to the individual and those around them.

That's mostly because those "free drug" zones where zones where people could do the existing, crappy, and still illegal to sell drugs.

For heroin at least, when it's pure and in controlled doses (such that one would get if it was legally prescribed from the state) there are few adverse effects, and nothing of the kind of dire side-effects we see in people using the crappy, mixed, stuff sold in the streets.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#208

Post by shados »

crdb wrote: post #180
icc97 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a false equivalence. Pot smoking is victimless (at most, your landlord will need to get rid of the smell for the next non-smoking tenant). Murder has, by definition, serious consequences for someone else. 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.

"at most, your landlord will need to get rid of the smell for the next non-smoking tenant"

And while you're there, will need to find a way to get rid of the smell for everyone in a 500 feet radius (im exaggerating, of course).

While I'm absolutely ok with it being legal, and it certainly should not be a criminal offense...it at least should follow rules similar to tobacco with a twist. That shit can seriously ruin the day of everyone living around. Entire city parks are becoming impossible to go through unless you're looking for a contact high.

So it definitely does not deserve to be a crazy SWAT team involved criminal offense, but victimless, not quite.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#209

Post by TelmoMenezes »

baldfat wrote: post #206
TelmoMenezes wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A counter-example is Portugal, that had a severe heroin problem in the 80s and solved it by decriminalizing all drugs. It is true that cocaine and heroin are very serious drugs that can do a lot of harm. It is also true that prohibition and the prosecution of users only seems to make matters worse. For some scientific evidence in cartoon format :) : http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comics_en/rat-park/

Drugs are still illegal and dealers and traffickers are still put in prison. People as user are brought to specific court called "Discussion Panels." Repeated users are given various forms of treatment. Recreation users can also have community service and fines. Never work in USA though since the Police work with the Healthcare system and so if a offender stops going to treatment at their doctor's office the office c…

> Drugs are still illegal and dealers and traffickers are still put in prison.

You are correct, but there are a few nuances. An important one is that methadone started being provided to treat heroin addiction. Providing a pharmacological-grade opiate to make the addict's life bearable was an important shift in mentality. It also worked really well in solving the actual social problems caused by hard street drugs.

I tell you this from first-person observation. I grew up in Portugal and have several friends from the generation before mine, which was the one strongly affected by rampant heroin addiction.

> Never work in USA though since the Police work with the Healthcare system [...]

To my European ears this sounds extra-creepy. Are people in the US ok with this sort of thing overall?

On a side note: Portugal is the most religious country in the EU. More than 80% of the population identify as catholic. Drug decriminalization was achieved by subtle political action, not as a result of overwhelming public opinion. Portugal is in no way more liberal than the US. So maybe there's some hope for rational policy.

Another side note: this "subtle action" holds to this day. My guess is that most Portuguese citizens are not aware of the extent of decriminalization. I have had several Portuguese people look at me in disbelief when I tell them that it is no longer a crime to consume any drug in Portugal, including heroin and cocaine. The New York Times talks about drug decriminalization in Portugal more than the Portuguese press does. I suspect this is somewhat intentional.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#210

Post by aianus »

random_upvoter wrote: post #197
AstralStorm wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

OTOH once marijuana is legal it is just another crop and I would expect to price to drop to near zero. Combined with the fact that you hardly need kilograms of it, I wouldn't get too excited about future tax revenue.

I would argue otherwise.

Alcohol (especially wine) is very easy and cheap to make at home but the Liquor Control Board of Ontario still managed to pull in $1.8 billion last year taxing it.

Post reply on HN