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

There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 147 posts

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#41

Post by crazygringo »

dcolkitt wrote: post #7

I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…

I think it's pretty simple -- politicians think it's going to happen, but don't want to be personally linked to it because it can hurt their popularity with certain segments of voters they rely on. Nobody wants to claim credit for it.

So they put it up for referendum instead, so it happens but it doesn't harm anyone's careers.

It's not at all any kind of vindication of direct democracy. Rather, because it's broadly popular but also highly unpopular with significant segments of voters on both sides... a referendum works out for everyone.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#42

Post by kennedyireland »

dheera wrote: post #6

I really wish there were also laws about not doing it in public spaces. I don't care if people do it in their own spaces, but when the smell wafts out onto the sidewalk, it makes me nauseous.

I see it as a quality of life issue and people forcing their smoke onto others. Smoking in public in large metropolitan areas should have laws around it. Especially in built up areas. Walk a mile in New York City these days and you will constantly be in range of Pot or Cigarette smoke. Either passing by people smoking or being stuck behind them walking. It's a civility issue but unfortunately by and large we can't trust people to be civil in our cities unlike large metropolitan areas like Tokyo for example, therefore we need some quality of life laws around this and more importantly the expectation that they will be consistently enforced. There are plenty of laws in big cities such as New York that are never enforced invalidating the existence of the law in the first place.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#43

Post by mdifrgechd »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #9
dheera wrote: post #6

I really wish there were also laws about not doing it in public spaces. I don't care if people do it in their own spaces, but when the smell wafts out onto the sidewalk, it makes me nauseous.

At least it isn't hazardous like cigarette smoke. I really wish cigarettes were completely banned in public spaces. If you want to destroy your own lungs on your own property, fine. But I shouldn't have to breath it in.

Personally I find marijuana smoke way more irritating than cigarette smoke, at least second hand outside.

Maybe I'm reading too much in to your comment, but with cigarette smoking there is a lot of the "if you want to destroy your lungs" attitude that I hypothesize stems from the puritain "if you want to prioritize enjoying something over long term health, I'll be especially harsh towards you". I 100% understand the infringement (or at least encroachment) on your right to enjoy the outdoors and believe it is very rude to expose someone to obnoxious smoke. But judging the "destroying your lungs" aspect is nobody's business but the person doing it. You may not have meant it this way, but I have seen a lot of people who do.

Edit - also, marijuana smoke is hazardous, just like tobacco smoke. Why would it be more benign?

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#44

Post by nashashmi »

dcolkitt wrote: post #7

I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…

Police don’t support it. Difficult to enforce on some people (under 21) and not others.

Businesses don’t support it. People should not come to work drunk or on high.

Government doesn’t like it. Marijuana creates bad atmosphere of drugged people.

People who never face the problems associated with marijuana are ok with it. But they still need a reason to vote yes. And prison population and Black Lives Matter did just that

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#45

Post by mdavidn »

dcolkitt wrote: post #7

I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…

To combat drugs, huge sums of public funds flow to public-sector union jobs and private industries. Both contribute significantly to political campaigns, whereas victims of the drug war cannot.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#46

Post by TylerE »

munk-a wrote: post #36
creato wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think being pro legalization doesn't win many votes, but being anti legalization could cost votes. It's an easy attack ad to make. One of the worst things about politics seems to be that the substance of the attack doesn't really matter, just the fact that it exists. With popular votes on the topic, everyone wins: people get what they want, and no legislator needs to grow the courage to stand up for it.

Sadly being pro-legalization loses you older voters that were exposed to a lot more propaganda during the war on drugs - legalization is inevitable as we age out of those voters but it still is a semi-risky political stance. Bear in mind that John Boehner (yea that one) is now hawking legal marijuana himself after years of publicly opposing it.

I don’t think that’s as true anymore.

Someone who was 18 in the Summer of Love (1967) is 71 today.

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#47

Post by tshaddox »

crazygringo wrote: post #41
dcolkitt wrote: post #7

I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…

I think it's pretty simple -- politicians think it's going to happen, but don't want to be personally linked to it because it can hurt their popularity with certain segments of voters they rely on. Nobody wants to claim credit for it. So they put it up for referendum instead, so it happens but it doesn't harm anyone's careers. It's not at all any kind of vindication of direct democracy. Rather, because it's broadly p…

That doesn’t seem like a satisfying explanation. Why then do legislators routinely support other legislation that is similarly or even less popular than marijuana legalization?

Re: There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana

#50

Post by sevencolors »

crazygringo wrote: post #41
dcolkitt wrote: post #7

I think it would make a fascinating poli sci case study about why almost all cannabis legalization came from popular referendum instead of legislation. What is it about cannabis that makes it so much more amenable to direct democracy compared to representative democracy. Polls show that overwhelming majorities in most states support legalization. Yet elected representative have been extremely reticent to move policy…

I think it's pretty simple -- politicians think it's going to happen, but don't want to be personally linked to it because it can hurt their popularity with certain segments of voters they rely on. Nobody wants to claim credit for it. So they put it up for referendum instead, so it happens but it doesn't harm anyone's careers. It's not at all any kind of vindication of direct democracy. Rather, because it's broadly p…

I also think it's an older generational mindset, that being pro-pot will sink your career. They don't want to offend too many people so it's easier to stick their head in the sand and then "come around" when it's suddenly popular.

There's also people like my mother who believe marijuana is akin to meth. If you smoke it once you'll end up homeless, under a bridge down by the river

Post reply on HN