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

221–230 of 274 posts

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#221

Post by dylanfw »

AstralStorm wrote: post #126
dwaxe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes a law is detrimental to human good. In such cases we should break it.

No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it. Instead of breaking it in the dark, apply sunlight and expose the problem, then fix it. This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more. Apparently certain countries have no such problems, with near full employment. For instance, South Korea, and it's a pretty rich country. So it is not impossi…

> No, the companies involved have clout to lobby to change it.

> This used to be how the US operated, how both majorities (women) and minorities got the right to vote, and more.

You might be giving a bit too much credit to company lobbyists and not enough to law-breaking activists. Both examples involved extensive illegal actions to accelerate change.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#222

Post by LyndsySimon »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #106
LyndsySimon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Anarchism has always been aligned with communism except in terms of the question of the state. As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I must disagree with this assertion.

I deliberately left two trolls in there. Just for you. <3

Awww! I'm touched! :)

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#223

Post by TheBeardKing »

zkhalique wrote: post #78

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've never taken an economics class so forgive me, but hypothetically, what would the effects be if everyone was given citizenship today? All jobs in agriculture, construction, services, etc. would require minimum wages and benefits and the costs of many basic things would increase drastically. Imported produce would be much cheaper than domestic, making it ineffective for farmers here to compete. That would severely reduce the number of agricultural jobs here, further reducing the low skill labor market. What do you do with all these people, who now qualify for unemployment insurance? Not to mention that low income people can no longer afford basic goods and services, and housing prices would go up.

Perhaps I'm way off base, but would appreciate some clarification on these issues.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#224

Post by soundwave106 »

exclusiv wrote: post #62
tw04 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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???

How so? Libertarianism allows for the control to shift to local governments where citizens can have more power over their society. It's not the absence of government but a framework to protect individual liberty. You'd still have government functions locally.

I've heard libertarian describe many viewpoints to be honest, so people's gut reaction can be quite confusing.

On the one hand, I've heard the term "libertarian" applied to what could also be called a classic liberal position (ala Adam Smith), which favors minimal government interference but recognizes the need for government structure for many things. (In which case, a decentralized government could be part of such a vision.)

On the other hand, I've heard the term "libertarian" applied to what also is called anarchism, which favors no government at all because reasons / The Man or something. I've also heard libertarian being used to describe what I would call fascist-capitalism (if you are the type of "libertarians" who also hates democracy, you possibly fall in this category).

The former I personally find naive, the later I find repulsive, and neither frankly has much to do with the Adam Smith position at all.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#225

Post by dmix »

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…

> They also give clean needles (could happen in certain states) and crack pipes (never).

Both crack pipes AND needles are given out in Canada. Not sure why you think crack would be treated differently? Harm reduction is harm reduction, I doubt they are selective about which drugs are used.

Although Canada is progressive and even has safe heroin injection sites in Vancouver staffed with nurses. I just read an article saying that it's now coming to other provinces because it was successful in reducing the spread of diseases and overdoses. Plus we are legalizing marijuana.

Not sure about the US harm reduction policies though, they are known for some silly drug policies.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#226

Post by sqeaky »

urza wrote: post #169
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.

You just demonstrated the bias that the guy against legalisation is affected. If the murder rate didn't change by de-criminalizing murder at all, then it would be more rational to spend the resources on other ways that could help lower the rate or help deal with the facts that they are happening.

You make it sound as though passing a law against has huge resources involved. Since we all agree murder is bad, there isn't any argument or lobbying and a ban on murder and the law is simply passed. Even the investigation techniques can largely come from other similar crimes, fingerprints, DNA, asking questions are all reusable from other crimes. Some are unique, but not a huge cost compared to drugs.

Then there is the huge investment in thing that only catch people with drugs. Drug sniffing dogs, housing for literally millions of non-violent offenders, training on finding drugs.

In addition to the victim which others have commented on this is an extremely poor analogy.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#227

Post by idm »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #217

Are traffic accidents categorized under 'crime'? Didn't we read here recently about the rise in fatal collisions due to impaired drivers? How does that factor into the analysis?

The stat is not for 'impaired' drivers. Due to the testing procedure used, which lacks accuracy in the time domain, the stat is: 'has used cannabis this month.'

More people are able to use cannabis when it is legal, so this number would be expected to increase.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#228

Post by mastratton3 »

I wish they would have shown comparisons to other states that didn't legalize as opposed to trying to draw conclusions based on the same states prior performance. In some of these cases where legalization didn't cause significant increases, how does this compare nationally?

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#229

Post by BurningFrog »

tombone12 wrote: post #182
BurningFrog wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument rests on the assumption that the Government mainly benefits the poor and powerless.

No, it explicitly states that it only removes that which benefit the poor in regards to their relation with the rich.

Which "it" is that, and where can I read this explicit statement?

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#230

Post by Prefinem »

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…

> I've never met a caucasian person who's been arrested for marijuana posession.

I happen to know someone (Caucasian) who was just arrested and let me say that skin color isn't always an issue. I think your point would stand more firmly on a basis of states that are more or less likely to criminalize the drug.

Edit: To early to speak correctly

Post reply on HN