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

251–260 of 274 posts

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#251

Post by bzbarsky »

hackuser wrote: post #246
bzbarsky wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to ask: have you ever looked at the Koch brothers' actual views? Because I have a hard time reconciling your strawman description with http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/13/koch-bros-t... as just one example. Or http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/08/15/clemenc... or http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-15/forfeiture-reform-aligns... for that matter. Those are not rich people problems they're…

There are equally strong objections to their attempt to dominate the political system by spending billions of dollars, from the local to the national level on an extensive range of elections and organizations.[0] At one point, they were planning to spend approximately as much as the Republican Party on this election cycle (they don't seem to like Trump, so maybe they backed off a little, but I don't know).[1] Why sho…

> Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others?

Our political funding system is broken, I agree. So is our general electoral system: elections are _way_ too long, which makes them more expensive, of course.

> I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views

By no means am I saying that everything, or most of, or a large part of, what the Koch brothers do or think is good. I'm just saying that the claim that all their political activity is guided by the basic principle "let's see how much we can screw poor people" is a caricature, and not a terribly accurate one, and providing one simple counterexample.

I'm not asking you, or anyone else, to like them personally, the sum total of their activities, or any particular activities. All I'm asking for is that we don't jump from "these people are doing a bunch of stuff I disagree with" to "these people are pure evil, so anything they do must be evil, hence anything they are involved in is evil by association and must be fought against". Unfortunately, this last bit of reasoning is far too common in politics recently, all across the political spectrum. Just like the related "This organization is good, so whatever it does must be good" line of reasoning that seems to be so common... and usually indicates that the organization should be terminated before it does some serious harm. :(

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#252

Post by betenoire »

ensignavenger wrote: post #231
shados wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 th…

It is my opinion that it should definitely be illegal to smoke (anything) on public property. Landlords should be able to choose (via terms in a lease) whether or not it is okay to smoke on their property.

Just to nitpick, I shouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigar around a campfire on BLM land?

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#253

Post by ensignavenger »

betenoire wrote: post #252
ensignavenger wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is my opinion that it should definitely be illegal to smoke (anything) on public property. Landlords should be able to choose (via terms in a lease) whether or not it is okay to smoke on their property.

Just to nitpick, I shouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigar around a campfire on BLM land?

I was thinking more in public places where there are other members of the public within a reasonable proximity, but I will grant you a valid point. My general proposal does not need to apply to every situation. Though defining the exact circumstances wherein someone may and may not smoke on public land may not be worth the hassle, and a blanket ban might be preferable to some endlessly complex regulation... something to think about, though. For your own health, please consider putting the cigar down, though :)

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#254

Post by mc32 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #211
mc32 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I also mean fair to all immigrants by granting all of any potential immigrants equal chance of acceptance, regardless of geography --but with an eye toward their potential contribution to the US --just as many other nations' immigration policies do. Let's also remember, up and till WWi we were not a rich country. We were quite rural and not all that excellent. Many of today's poor countries were not that far behi…

Revisionist history. During the US Civil war, there were two great armies in the world, and the US Army of the North was number one. Number two? The US Army of the South.

Around wwi the European powers were the most powerful, Russia, UK, France, Austria, etc.

Saying the civil war US was an example of a great army is like saying Syria has the greatest armies in the ME just because so many people are armed.

The US was rural, technologically backward, compared to some european powers, and not that far ahead of others.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#255

Post by mc32 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #220
mc32 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. People who go the regular route are punished and have to wait and wait, get denied, etc. meanwhile irregular immigrants blow right past them.

By 'irregular' we mean impoverished desperate people? Who have no means to afford paperwork and lawyers? Being fair to the (relatively) wealthy is a strange sort of fairness.

I'm speaking of fairness in opportunity. Someone in the Gabon should not be at a disadvantage just because they can't simply cross the border. We should set a quota, 1M, 2M, whatever, and distribute that fairly among all wanting to immigrate.

We set the rules. We have not achieved WH Bushes thousand points of light new world order single government. We look out for ourselves just as China, Mexico, Singapore do.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#256

Post by mc32 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #212
IPbanned wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. America's responsibility should be to its own people, not to the entire world's. 2. Brain drain is a real problem. Letting the smartest, most motivated, wealthiest etc. migrate from the third world only exacerbates the problems at home. They're losing the people best endowed to fix their societies. If you really want to be a philanthropist (rather than paying lip service while you profit off wage arbitrage), you c…

You want smart technical people to stay behind in a civil war? You go there. And as the most powerful, we cannot stand by and pretend everybody else is on their own. That is the most irresponsible thing any country can do. Even Poland helps their neighbors unconditionally in time of need. And they're no better off.

I'll be with you right after we get our poor out of their straights. We have large amounts of domestic poor, both black and white --we need to help ourselves before we help anyone else.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#257

Post by robbrown451 »

AstralStorm wrote: post #145
robbrown451 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually reducing tobacco use can increase public spending on health. Lung cancer tends to take people out pretty quickly, while those who live longer run up higher costs. (that said, I tend to be "pro sin tax")

Lung cancer caused by smoking took about a generation to show up in the statistics. That's very much the converse of "takes people out pretty quickly". That said, most drugs that are schedule I have much more immediate side effects.

That's not what I meant by "takes people out quickly." I mean that once someone gets symptoms of lung cancer and needs health care as a result, they die more quickly than someone who is starting to see the symptoms of old age and needs health care for that.

I.e. someone who dies at age 60 from lung cancer is less cost to the system than someone who live to 95 and dies of "natural causes."

That's not saying lung cancer is good, but it is saying that reducing health care costs is not a good reason to try to reduce smoking.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#258

Post by wfo »

betenoire wrote: post #101
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 ;)

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.

They don't mention the number of arrests or lives of casual marijuana smokers destroyed for no reason before and after the law was passed -- if it saved a single person from having a criminal record, being locked in a cage, or having their life destroyed then I'd say it's a pretty huge win.

The Cato report just shows that we don't have to give anything up in order to get that big win -- it's free with no downside.

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#259

Post by hackuser »

bzbarsky wrote: post #251
hackuser wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are equally strong objections to their attempt to dominate the political system by spending billions of dollars, from the local to the national level on an extensive range of elections and organizations.[0] At one point, they were planning to spend approximately as much as the Republican Party on this election cycle (they don't seem to like Trump, so maybe they backed off a little, but I don't know).[1] Why sho…

> Why should two voters have so much more influence than 310 million others? Our political funding system is broken, I agree. So is our general electoral system: elections are _way_ too long, which makes them more expensive, of course. > I also think this the parent post presents an overly-moderated depiction of their views By no means am I saying that everything, or most of, or a large part of, what the Koch brother…

I agree, caricatures and knee-jerk reactions are not useful and not informative. It prevents finding common ground, which is essential to democracies moving forward (a good thing - I want my fellow citizens, even those who disagree, to have a say).

Re: The Effect of State Marijuana Legalizations

#260

Post by clock_tower »

dnautics wrote: post #109
clock_tower wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, in the middle ages (and it's returning now) there were debtor's prisons, which libertarians are very strong opponents of. That in and of itself is huge.

Looks like that's true; I hadn't come across the early history of debtors' prisons, and had always thought of them as an early-modern thing.

It looks like Reason.com argues that pay-for-service modern law is equivalent to debtors' prison, but I haven't heard of libertarians supporting the restoration of proper debtors' prison (where the state imprisons someone for failing to pay a debt to a non-state contracting party). Of course, there's no canonical list of libertarian principles, so I'm sure some do support that...

As for the Middle Ages, I'd still recommend the books I mentioned; they make a number of interesting references to village law, and the right of peasant farmers (both serfs, who owed labor service, and freemen, who owed rent) to self-regulate.

_A Farewell to Alms_ mentions that farmland in the Middle Ages returned 10% per annum at basically zero risk in England and relatively little on the Continent (the only risks being war and bad harvests); if libertarianism wants to return to that economic arrangement, perhaps with the US government selling bonds returning 10% adjusted for inflation, then perhaps it has a silver lining.

Post reply on HN