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

51–60 of 147 posts

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

#51

Post by js2 »

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…

Voting on referendum allows voters to vote on policy divorced from the tribalism of party.

Florida voted for a $15/minimum wage, part of Biden's platform, but chose Trump over Biden.

What would we come up with if we voted by national referendum on gun control? Immigration? Climate change? Healthcare? Reproductive rights? I wonder...

Politicians in both parties are bribed (er, lobbied) by special interests. The average joe voter wouldn't care a rat's ass what Exxon thinks of climate change legislation (say).

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

#52

Post by dnhz »

munk-a wrote: post #30
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoke is bad for you period. The chemicals and nicotine content is irrelevant.

If you smoke as much weed as a chain smoker does cigarettes you're going to be really high. Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.

Carcinogens: smoke, alcohol.

Not a carcinogen: sugar.

Sugar demonization is out of control. Many people eat an unhealthy amount of it, but any level of tobacco or alcohol consumption harms health.

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

#53

Post by jedberg »

rozab wrote: post #31
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think it's much less hazardous than cigarette smoke, it's just that people don't tend to smoke 20 joints a day. Also, a bit of secondhand smoke outside isn't dangerous, it just smells bad.

> Also, a bit of secondhand smoke outside isn't dangerous, it just smells bad.

That's provably false. And besides, not only does it smell bad, but it sticks to your clothes and then you smell bad.

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

#54

Post by eikenberry »

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.

They really are about the same health wise, they both contain the particulate matter which is the worst (health wise) part of smoke. The main difference is that you don't smoke as much MJ as you do tobacco, so it's easier to keep the amount in the healthy range.

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

#55

Post by lalaland1125 »

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…

It's simple math. People are against marijuana tend to hold that position more strongly to the point where they might refuse to vote for politicians who support marijuana. Pro-marijuana people on the other hand usually have that as a weaker preference.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict... is a good article discussing these types of effects.

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

#56

Post by bigbubba »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #18
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Smoke is bad for you period. The chemicals and nicotine content is irrelevant.

I'm quite sure breathing in any sort of hot soot does you no favors, but it's obviously absurdly false that the chemical composition of the smoke doesn't matter, or that all smoke is made equal. Some smokes are much worse than others.

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

#57

Post by dboreham »

Interesting to see people on social media with one breath talk about how mask wearing should be up to the individual, with another that legalizing weed is a terrible move that will lead to the breakdown on society. Personally I really do not like the smell so I would like a "freedom from skunk smell" bill passed too.

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

#58

Post by rStar »

mdifrgechd wrote: post #20
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 agree with you that it is very obnoxious and super rude to be doing in an area close to other non-consenting people. I also think that a law about where you could smoke would inevitably be abused and not serve anyone: for example, is it really a police matter that you can smell your neighbors smoking weed, or that someone is doing it to near you in a park. I think we need to get away from this tattle tail mentality…

i believe we’re running into cultural differences here.

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

#60

Post by lotsofpulp »

dnhz wrote: post #52
munk-a wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you smoke as much weed as a chain smoker does cigarettes you're going to be really high. Generally speaking "weed usage" introduces far fewer carcinogens compared to "cigarette usage" - but lots of things are bad for you including alcohol and, especially, sugar.

Carcinogens: smoke, alcohol. Not a carcinogen: sugar. Sugar demonization is out of control. Many people eat an unhealthy amount of it, but any level of tobacco or alcohol consumption harms health.

Not being a carcinogen doesn’t mean something isn’t bad for you. I’d even go so far as to say all added sugar is bad for you. Doctors even put fruit juice on the list of bad things since it’s just sugar, even for kids.

And sugar needs to be vilified more if anything. I would bet healthcare spending on issues related to excess sugar/carbohydrate consumption (aka being overweight) dwarf anything else.

Post reply on HN