241–250 of 918 posts
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
I don’t get why they don’t just use Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place. It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or ot…
> I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps Why not? Laws of scale would drive the price down while improving the profit margins, both clients and investors would win.
I think some inefficiencies are important, especially when scoped to "who can do this thing the cheapest?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforcement is not a form of treatment, regardless we've been trying enforcement since the 70s and it's been a disaster. Why would you want to double down on that?
> Enforcement is not a form of treatment, regardless we've been trying enforcement since the 70s and it's been a disaster. This is often said - but what do you actually mean by disaster? Hard drug usage is objectively lower in strict enforcement areas vs. non-enforcement areas like Portland was briefly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps Calling it: CVS and Walgreens will move into the medical market for this. You think these little shops will be able to process health insurance payments when that sector gets in on it? lol
You described a worst-case scenario. I’d rather smoke Marlboro Greens, and I promised myself 20 years ago I’d never spend another penny with them.
They'd be insane to not go with that name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes this seems to be increasingly common, at least on the west coast. The suboptimal part is that the buyer typically gets hit with an out-of-network ATM fee for doing this, so the consumer is paying $2-5 for processing per transaction.
That’s pretty small potatoes though compared to going to a bank yourself and making a transaction for cash you don’t normally have around. Maybe there’s an ATM down the block but that’s not the case for many people.
Great, now do psilocybin, LSD and MDMA.
DMT and mescaline too.
My personal opinion is that most people won't be able to regulate any large caches of the above-commented drugs... but after one or two rides on Salvia most'll keep a wide birth [which I recommend as "the worst experience possible; if somebody suggests you try Salvia they're bullying you; try something else"].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more like the stuff that doesn't work is being pushed again.
On it's surface it seems to have worked better than these experiments. Otherwise the experiments would not be getting rolled back... There's very few if any fans of what played out in Portland, for instance. Overt drug usage exploded and became a much worse problem. The exact opposite of what proponents had hoped. Some will say "but they didn't do it right" or similar - tired arguments we hear every time pet policies…
The novel thing in world of illicit drugs is that fentanyl is very hard to dose correctly, so death rates are higher than before. That new fact on the scene makes long term comparisons difficult. But, I would say given the dropping crime rates of the last 40 years, we're doing better than the previous waves of "tough on crime" policy including drug wars from the 1980s and 1990s, despite incarcerating a lot fewer people. So I think these "experiments" absolutely are working. That effectiveness may however be overshadowed by the specific dangerousness of fentanyl in the illicit market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforcement is not a form of treatment, regardless we've been trying enforcement since the 70s and it's been a disaster. Why would you want to double down on that?
> Enforcement is not a form of treatment, regardless we've been trying enforcement since the 70s and it's been a disaster. This is often said - but what do you actually mean by disaster? Hard drug usage is objectively lower in strict enforcement areas vs. non-enforcement areas like Portland was briefly.
Our prisons do a horrible job at rehabilitation. Our prisons themselves contain lots of drugs. Our prisons are, in my opinion, immorally run. As a nation we believe in retribution and are fine with prison rapes and other abuses that occur there.
The drug war has been a disaster in terms of cost/benefit regarding how much we've spent on it. It's been a disaster in terms of civil liberties. We Americans like to think we are free but walking around with $10,000 in cash will, if found out by police, result in it being seized. Civil asset forfeiture has caused many innocent people to be punished. It has been a disaster in terms of our national incarceration rate. Incarceration for drugs targets poor and minorities. Rich people rarely go to jail for drug use. For example, Rush Limbaugh got a fine and drug treatment.
Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place. It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or ot…
> I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps Calling it: CVS and Walgreens will move into the medical market for this. You think these little shops will be able to process health insurance payments when that sector gets in on it? lol