There was a clear winner on election night: Marijuana • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 3:01 PM UTC

bigbubba wrote: post #56

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

American Sprits initially made it seem like their additive free cigarettes were somehow more "healthier" when they really weren't. I get that chemically they aren't the same thing. However it's like saying Captain Morgan isn't as bad as Fleischmans. If you compare someone taking significantly more weed hits than you are tobacco hits, the weed smoker will most likely be in poorer health than the tobacco smoker.

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

#132

Post by pwinnski » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #69

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…

Right to repair in Mass was also popular vote and won in a landslide. Republic democracies are no longer representative of the people. Instead of the blue and red football team we should get direct ballot votes.

In theory, we elect representative to understand the issues better than we do, and protect us from ill-informed impulses.

In practice, it seem like our representatives "understand" what lobbyists are paid to help them understand, and they protect entrenched interests from anything those interests don't like.

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

#133

Post by TheCoelacanth » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

nashashmi wrote: post #49

Some people voted yes despite never consuming because it was persecuting a certain race of individuals. That’s not how laws should be formed in this country.

Should everything that I don't personally do be outlawed?

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

#134

Post by meowfly » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #57

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.

That law already exists. I'm not aware of any recreational state that allows public consumption. It just seems to be rarely enforced.

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

#135

Post by whatshisface » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

mdifrgechd wrote: post #85

whatshisface wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But judging the "destroying your lungs" aspect is nobody's business but the person doing it. There's a limit to how far this principle goes. If you saw someone trying to saw something out of their arm, would you think "whatever, it's their arm," or "this person is having a psychotic break and desperately needs medical attention, including restraint?" A lot of people would extend that to most forms of irrational sel…

I was thinking closer to common behaviors that are known to be unhealthy... drinking pop, not exercising, whatever. If someone is trying to kill themselves I think its different and they should get help. But we cant be hyperbolic about what that means and try to force everyone into a norm that values long term health above all else, because of how it encroaches on freedom. A more realistic example of what you're sayi…

The big holes won't kill all of you, though, in the same way that filling your lungs with carcinogens would.

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

#136

Post by buzzert » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #94

buzzert wrote: post #90

Nobody seems to talk about marijuana being a “gateway drug” anymore, even though it’s still true. I’ve witnessed friends in college become addicted to weed (yes, psychological addiction is still addiction) and their futures have suffered as a consequence. I believe we need to discourage drug use as a society, not give up and let it become accepted. If that means instilling fear that one could be arrested with possess…

You can discourage while still having it legal. In fact, it's easier to detect people with problems if it's legalized, since they lose the incentive to hide the habit and it becomes easier for them to seek help when they feel like it. It's also easier for them to come clean and resume a normal life; otherwise, once you're tainted with felony, all the incentives are to fall back even worse on substance abuse. If there…

The problem is, many of these people don’t believe they are sick. So if you wanted them to get treatment, it would have to be by force. At that point, what’s the difference between that and going to prison?

I agree it shouldn’t be on someone’s permanent record, but it should still be punished. Maybe keep it as a misdemeanor?

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

#137

Post by sidpatil » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #110

munk-a wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I think it's important to fight to make sure we don't get similarly entrenched weed cartels. We now have a new fight - against market consolidation of the weed producers.

Would there even be a chance of a healthy weed market? From my perspective the market will quickly be saturated by big tobacco, since they already have all the plantation & manufacturing infrastructure needed to mass produce smoking products. Note this is also why I have the feeling a lot of the pro-marijuana research the has come out recently is going to turn out just as illegitimate as all the pro-tobacco stuff fro…

> Would there even be a chance of a healthy weed market? From my perspective the market will quickly be saturated by big tobacco, since they already have all the plantation & manufacturing infrastructure needed to mass produce smoking products.

It would depend on how the laws are structured, as well as market demand.

Microbrews and local produce markets come to mind. They are popular precisely because they are not large: their smaller scale allows them to offer higher-quality and speciality products.

I suspect something similar would show up very fast in the cannabis industry if the laws are structured to allow it.

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

#138

Post by bigbubba » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 6:19 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #123

mustacheemperor wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Another example to point to from recent US political history: the federal legalization of same-sex marriage, and subsequent rapid rehabilitation of the public platforms held by its former opponents still regularly running for re-election.

Just to be clear - the “federal legalization” of same-sex marriage came from the Supreme Court, not actual Federal Law, so it is definitely at risk of being overruled with the new court membership. The best our federal government could do was the Defense of Marriage Act, (reluctantly) signed in to law by Clinton in ‘96, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Individual states, with significant aid f…

Rarely does SCOTUS reverse course like that, even when the justices change. The risk, while not zero, seems very slight.

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

#139

Post by shreyansj » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

brokenmachine wrote: post #121

shreyansj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add gasoline/diesel powered automobiles to that list please.

This is the standard strawman argument that antisocial smokers who don't care about others right to peacefully enjoy relatively clean air make. Fact is, cars have a lot of other utility, and if it was possible to make a car that doesn't make smoke cheaply and without any other negatives, the whole car industry would go that way, legislation would happen and no more smoky cars would be made. Smoking however has no oth…

While I am not an antisocial smoker myself, I disagree with complete ban on public smoking as the parent comment suggested. Designated areas for smoking, sure!

There are ways to make cars that don't make smoke cheaply (Nissan Leaf, Chevy Bolt etc) and the argument about "without any other negatives" is really debatable when compared with manufacturing process of any other car.

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

#140

Post by toyg » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 10:03 PM UTC

buzzert wrote: post #136

toyg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can discourage while still having it legal. In fact, it's easier to detect people with problems if it's legalized, since they lose the incentive to hide the habit and it becomes easier for them to seek help when they feel like it. It's also easier for them to come clean and resume a normal life; otherwise, once you're tainted with felony, all the incentives are to fall back even worse on substance abuse. If there…

The problem is, many of these people don’t believe they are sick. So if you wanted them to get treatment, it would have to be by force. At that point, what’s the difference between that and going to prison? I agree it shouldn’t be on someone’s permanent record, but it should still be punished. Maybe keep it as a misdemeanor?

> At that point, what’s the difference between that and going to prison?

Despite some shockingly bad practices in the past and the common portrayal by media as "prisons for crazy people", psychiatric and psychological treatment is waaaaay different from prison. And yes, that treatment can be made compulsory, the legal instruments are already there, no new law necessary. DUI, for example, will obviously stay on the books no matter what, and you can work from there.

> Maybe keep it as a misdemeanor?

Why? Do you consider drinking alcohol punishable as a misdemeanor? We should just treat drug addiction the same way we treat addiction to alcohol, pills, regular smoking, etc.