Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 208 posts

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#151

Post by _acme »

hfourm wrote: post #145
DanBC wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannabis use isn't the solution to opioid deaths. Other countries have strict laws about cannabis, and those laws are enforced, and they don't have the problems of opioid deaths that the US has. The real solution to opioid death is adequate treatment for pain; and treating addiction as a health problem not a criminal justice problem.

"The real solution to opioid death is adequate treatment for pain" Like.... medical marijuana? Hard to believe you wrote those three sentences without putting two and two together. Regardless if I partially agree with you, further criminalizing marijuana is also NOT the solution to opioid deaths.

Marijuana may treat some forms of light pain, but it is in no way comparable to opioids as an adequate treatment for pain. It may be similar to Tylenol 3 (small amount of codeine plus APAP) on an opioid scale that goes much, much higher to medications such as hydromorphone, oxymorphone and fentanyl. Even heroin would only be classified as a 'medium strength' opioid compared to these examples.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#152

Post by _acme »

shams93 wrote: post #126

If you're trying to destroy the country on behalf of Putin forcing millions of middle aged chronic pain patients off cannabis onto opiates and inevitably heroin and fentynal is an efficient way to murder millions of people without firing a single shot.

Fentanyl is legal and safe when used appropriately, just like heroin is in some countries like the UK, which uses diamorphine where US hospitals might use morphine or hydromorphone.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#153

Post by dmix »

creaghpatr wrote: post #130
conductr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pot smokers aren’t violent people because it tends to chill you out This is not a great argument. I'd say pot smokers aren't violent people because they are everyone as in they are average people not drug addicts, which is mostly true (in my dataless opinion). Most people don't causally or recreationally use heroin, but like alcohol, a large portion of average people do enjoy regular MJ use.

The referenced violence in the parent comment is related to the trafficking of rather than the usage of pot, I believe.

You can debate the likelihood of alcohol or marijuana's influence on people to commit crimes all you like - but at the end of the day it's not a useful argument:

a) people were still getting both alcohol and marijuana under prohibition, prohibition does not work, so whether or not it makes people more violent doesn't really matter. Especially for the demographics who typically commit crimes are usually the people who have the greatest access to black market products.

b) the vast majority of the violence directly related to the drug comes from trafficking, which is ultimately a product of prohibition, not drug use

There's not much of a debate here if both a) and b) can't be meaningfully influence by federal policy.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#154

Post by SEJeff »

Clubber wrote: post #92
SEJeff wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But remember, Jeff Sessions was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 with the reason being, "He was too racist". Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?! This is the same guy who in March of 1986 said he would refer to a white civil rights lawyer as (and I quote), "A disgrace to his race." He then went on to refer to the ACLU, NAACP, and National Council of Churches as communist inspired and un-amer…

>Now how racist did you have to be in 1986 to be too racist?! About as racist as today. If you want to see what racism really looks like (and not merely bigotry), look to the 60s and prior.

I've been to Selma and Montgomery, AL (google: Edmund Pettus Bridge) and the surrounding museums around it. Sadly, I'm all too familar with this side of the country as I was raised in the south, but not of it (my parents were strongly against racism in all forms).

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#155

Post by dmix »

alexanderstears wrote: post #100
goalieca wrote: post #4

So much for « states rights » > Sessions, who has assailed marijuana as comparable to heroin and has blamed it for spikes in violence Pot smokers aren’t violent people because it tends to chill you out. The growers and dealers can belong to criminal organizations and cause problems. So naturally, keeping the gangs in business by keeping pot illegal is top priority.

The doctrine of States' rights is presupposes federal supremacy and a legalistic viewpoint. Marijuana can't be a State's rights issue because it's a federal issue. This is why you often hear the states' rights advocates call for a smaller federal government - states rights can only flourish without the shadow of federal jurisdiction. Right now marijuana is illegal federally - all States' rights proponents acknowledge…

Vouched for your dead comment. I believe you're shadowbanned, but I personally don't see a problem with the stuff you've written...

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#156

Post by saas_co_de »

carlf79 wrote: post #131
saas_co_de wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The states already lost precisely. which is why we need the feds to try and enforce the law again in order to relitigate it.

That's not how this works. The court operates under the rule of stare decsis which would already make this a tough hill to climb. Even more, the line of reasoning in the decision agreeing to federal restriction of in-state marijuana sales goes all the way back to the great depression and is really unlikely to be overturned in just over a decade since it was decided last time.

> the court operates under the rule of stare decsis

Yes and no. If you have a decision on one set of facts made on one basis just come up with another set of facts and another basis where you can get a opposing result without necessary logical conflict and you are all good.

The rat's nest of federal law and prior opinions makes this trivial, so at the end of the day, all legal opinions are arbitrary, and the only actual basis for any decision is whether or not it serves the interests of the court, which outside of the pet peeves, biases, and corruptions of individual judges, consists mostly of the perpetuation of the institution.

The SC's power is rooted in the federal government, and it is stacked with statist/corporatist hacks, so it will always have a preference for extending federal power, but that instinct must be tempered by the threat of an over-extension which reveals the inherent weakness of their position.

Making a move against a majority of the states now, on a subject where popular opinion is clearly against them, and with an all time low level of trust and respect for the federal government would definitely not be desirable.

Normally they could just refuse to hear appeals, but the 9th circuit is in a pretty feisty mood these days so I wouldn't be too surprised if they sided with the states, which would then force the SC to either let their ruling stand, or expose themselves directly on the issue.

Either way, they either let the states keep this going, or they piss off a lot of people, and either way is bad for them and good for the states.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#157

Post by chc »

Shivetya wrote: post #136
rufugee wrote: post #112

Is there an easy way to track donations from alcohol/big pharma lobbyists to the Republican party? I'm betting quite a bit of money, rather than concern for the prole's welfare, is behind this. Sessions said this in March: "I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marij…

If you follow the donations in this sector its usually boring and more towards whomever is in power. I would concentrate more on police and sheriff PACs and those related to the prison systems; not private but public which are most covered by PACs while I find some things to like about this Administration as a Libertarian it stops when confronted with Sessions. then again all this opens the door to more opportunities…

There have been multiple bills to reschedule marijuana over the past several years. They all died. There was another introduced this year and it met the same fate. I'm not sure why you'd blame Obama for the House's unwillingness to act.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#158

Post by DanBC »

hfourm wrote: post #145
DanBC wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cannabis use isn't the solution to opioid deaths. Other countries have strict laws about cannabis, and those laws are enforced, and they don't have the problems of opioid deaths that the US has. The real solution to opioid death is adequate treatment for pain; and treating addiction as a health problem not a criminal justice problem.

"The real solution to opioid death is adequate treatment for pain" Like.... medical marijuana? Hard to believe you wrote those three sentences without putting two and two together. Regardless if I partially agree with you, further criminalizing marijuana is also NOT the solution to opioid deaths.

There's not much evidence of efficacy for cannabis as a treatment for long term pain.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#159

Post by jdblair »

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #94
jdblair wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sessions will instead let federal prosecutors where pot is legal decide how aggressively to enforce federal marijuana law, the people said. He's pushing the choice to whether "to defend every law" down to regional federal prosecutors. Prosecutors always decide what laws to enforce by deciding how to allocate their scarce resources. This is an established legal custom called "prosecutorial discretion."

Prosecutional discretion is legalized bigotry. The legal system has a strong history of allowing sexist, racist, and classist thought to drive how laws are enforced. Any fair or just system would allow no such discretion.

I agree that prosecutorial discretion allows racism and other prejudice to be reflected in enforcement. However, every practical system will have prosecutorial discretion because resources are always limited.

Re: U.S. To End Policy That Let Legal Pot Flourish

#160

Post by Clubber »

sedtrader wrote: post #21

> as polls show a solid majority of Americans believe the drug should be legal I am for the legalizing of marijuana, but considering the majority of Americans live in only 9 of the states, decisions should not be made based on the "majority". Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of. 9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states an…

>Federal law based on what the majority wanted was one of the things that the framers were afraid of.

Some framers were afraid of like Jefferson. Hamilton and Washington were federalists and favored a strong central government.

I personally like state power over federal. If your state sucks, you always have the option to move to another state. That's a pretty fantastic option. Of course it has it's problems too. The South struggled to get states to put money in to fight the Civil War because the central government couldn't require it, it had to beg for it.

>9 states should not be able to dictate what occurs in the other 41 states and vice versa. Full state rights. Again I am for the legalization marijuana, but this needs to be a state by state decision, not federal govt.

Not sure of the logic there. It seems like rthe 41 states are dictating to the 9 states since 41 states pot is illegal.

Post reply on HN