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

SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

thenationaldesk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 247 posts

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#131

Post by lowkey »

nicoburns wrote: post #93
boibombeiro wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Toxic distilled alcohol isn't. Do you realize this ideia of poison alcohol was propaganda done by the government during prohibition, right? We know how to distill from millenniums, and selling poisonous alcohol isn't a very sustainable business model... I remember reading an article about the success of this campaign (was one of the first of this kinda). I'm mobile, but I'm sure someone can find a post a link.

> Do you realize this ideia of poison alcohol was propaganda from the government, right? Eh, I'm not sure about that. There are stories in the newspaper every few years about a corner stop selling cheap bootleg alcohol that has caused someone to go blind (or die) because it contained too much methanol. I for one am quite glad that alcohol production is well regulated.

> Do you realize this idea of poison alcohol was propaganda from the government, right?

Do you realize that:

> During prohibition, the US Govt added poison to industrial alcohol to discourage consumption. People continued to drink it, so the government added more and they killed 10,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#132

Post by junon »

darthrupert wrote: post #88
junon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody should consume cannabis daily Based on... what? Your opinion? Your parents? Your god? Because it's certainly not based on fact.

It's not good for you when used so frequently. Once or twice a week is fine, perhaps even good for you due to relaxing and mood-enhancing effects. Every day is stretching it and risking a dependence. But hey, I don't have to power to forbid you anything. I'm just saying how it is. You can just choose to ignore this and keep using every day.

But you've not stated any studies backing this up. You're just passing by like a judgmental parent.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#133

Post by junon »

Thorentis wrote: post #73
junon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody should consume cannabis daily Based on... what? Your opinion? Your parents? Your god? Because it's certainly not based on fact.

Not based on fact? Which facts are those? Certainly not these ones I'm guessing? https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2021/01/long-term-study-r... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Your first link's sample pool was high schoolers and young 20 y/os - people who haven't had their brains fully form yet (which happens around 25). Further, it was funded by the Australian department of health, so ehhh who knows what sort of biases exist there.

I can't even open your second link.

Picking sources from a Google search generally doesn't help to back up whatever point you're trying to make fwiw.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#134

Post by tragictrash »

Thorentis wrote: post #73
junon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody should consume cannabis daily Based on... what? Your opinion? Your parents? Your god? Because it's certainly not based on fact.

Not based on fact? Which facts are those? Certainly not these ones I'm guessing? https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2021/01/long-term-study-r... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Good job cherry picking clearly biased info off the internet. I think the site you were looking for is reddit.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#135

Post by bigbillheck »

boibombeiro wrote: post #90
aww_dang wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people can sell pies, vegetables, dairy and sometimes cider at informal farmers markets, cannabis should be the same. Moldy cannabis is self-apparent in most cases. Toxic distilled alcohol isn't. Some claim you can use a flame test to detect poisonous liquor.

> Toxic distilled alcohol isn't. Do you realize this ideia of poison alcohol was propaganda done by the government during prohibition, right? We know how to distill from millenniums, and selling poisonous alcohol isn't a very sustainable business model... I remember reading an article about the success of this campaign (was one of the first of this kinda). I'm mobile, but I'm sure someone can find a post a link.

> We know how to distill from millenniums,

Only in the sense that we've had computers for millennia (i.e. the one before 2000 and the one after).

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#136

Post by dasKrokodil »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #49
colordrops wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It certainly reduces gang violence and fake or tainted drugs.

How common is fake pot, though? I mean, surely young folks try to do stupid things to other young and stupid people (fake and tainted drugs). Occasionally folks don't get the quality they expect. But all this stuff means you lose customers and you continually need new folks to dupe. "fake or tainted drugs" has always seemed like a bigger problem with different categories of drugs. Additionally, I'm not convinced it a…

Here in Europe, there have been a lot of cases where sort-of-legal CBD weed was laced with sort-of-legal synthetic cannabinoids, which are essentially research chemicals (i.e. nobody really knows about their long-term effects and risks). If it's done right, the end result is not easily distinguishable from the real thing, but it's cheaper and safer to obtain for the dealers.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#137

Post by marcinzm »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #35
klyrs wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something pot activists have complained about from the get-go. Legalization was sold to politicians with the promise of high taxes. We knew that poor users would be priced out of the market, that legal weed would be a privilege enjoyed by the rich, that dealers with criminal records would be shut out of the legal market.

> Legalization was sold to politicians with the promise of high taxes. We knew that poor users would be priced out of the market, that legal weed would be a privilege enjoyed by the rich Poor users seem to enjoy a lot of legal alcohol. Taxes on that are high too, and it's even easier to make your own alcohol than to make your own weed.

And historically when even more alcohol was consumed there was a massive bootleg and moonshine industry. In the end, most likely the people running it have simply died of old age and the newer generations prefers other things.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#138

Post by rat9988 »

junon wrote: post #133
Thorentis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not based on fact? Which facts are those? Certainly not these ones I'm guessing? https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2021/01/long-term-study-r... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Your first link's sample pool was high schoolers and young 20 y/os - people who haven't had their brains fully form yet (which happens around 25). Further, it was funded by the Australian department of health, so ehhh who knows what sort of biases exist there. I can't even open your second link. Picking sources from a Google search generally doesn't help to back up whatever point you're trying to make fwiw.

This is the most biased answer I've ever read I believe.

Re: SF suspends cannabis tax to help dispensaries compete with drug dealers

#139

Post by JohnWhigham »

junon wrote: post #133
Thorentis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not based on fact? Which facts are those? Certainly not these ones I'm guessing? https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2021/01/long-term-study-r... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Your first link's sample pool was high schoolers and young 20 y/os - people who haven't had their brains fully form yet (which happens around 25). Further, it was funded by the Australian department of health, so ehhh who knows what sort of biases exist there. I can't even open your second link. Picking sources from a Google search generally doesn't help to back up whatever point you're trying to make fwiw.

doesn't help to back up whatever point you're trying to make fwiw

Neither does going "ehhh who knows what sort of biases exist there". What are you implying here, the people running the experiment are all inveterate stoners or something?

Post reply on HN