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

How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#31

Post by guard-of-terra »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #27
dllthomas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the mistake. Holding current Democrats disproportionately responsible is myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of any party who are on the wrong side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who…

Representative Doughton, who introduced the bill, was a Southerner and named after Robert E. Lee . I'm pretty sure he'd have been a Republican if he'd entered politics 40 years later (i.e. around when he retired). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Doughton That said, Democrats are absolutely to blame, too, for the current state of our misguided drug war: http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=…

Stalin, who caused death to hundreds of thousands of people, would probably be not be a communist if he entered politics after the fall of communism. Doesn't make communists apologising for him a bad thing; doesn't make communists being stubborn about him a good thing.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#32

Post by aaronbrethorst »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #31
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Representative Doughton, who introduced the bill, was a Southerner and named after Robert E. Lee . I'm pretty sure he'd have been a Republican if he'd entered politics 40 years later (i.e. around when he retired). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Doughton That said, Democrats are absolutely to blame, too, for the current state of our misguided drug war: http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=…

Stalin, who caused death to hundreds of thousands of people, would probably be not be a communist if he entered politics after the fall of communism. Doesn't make communists apologising for him a bad thing; doesn't make communists being stubborn about him a good thing.

I'm sorry that the Dixiecrats were a bunch of racist assholes, and I'm glad they switched to the Republican party. Does that help?

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#33

Post by dllthomas »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #30
dllthomas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organizations are not people. Treating them as if they are makes for poor reasoning.

I still don't see why an organization should not apologise for its own policy. Post-communist states did apologise for things they did decades before while being very different regimes. And that was a good thing; stubborness would be a disaster there, you can't move forward unless you repent. If you think of it, Marujuana criminalization took a toll of human lives comparable to GULAG.

To paraphrase OED, an apology is an expression of regret for something one has done wrong. An organization cannot experience regret, so demanding an apology from the organization is guaranteed to be empty. An apology from members of the organization may well be meaningful, but the current members of the organization have not done wrong (at least, no wrong that caused the initial passing of the 1937 act).

Basing your voting on whether your politicians are improving drug policy and/or have committed to do so on the future is totally reasonable. Basing your voting on your demand for an inherently empty ritual seems... not.

edited to add: Note that a Truth & Reconciliation type process is an entirely different thing - exposing and acknowledging the truth can be important and allow healing in ways that have no particular relationship to emotions fictionally experienced by the organization.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#34

Post by adventured »

lisper wrote: post #3

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…

There's absolutely no inherent problem with tax cuts for the wealthy - or anybody for that matter.

The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had).

For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his presidency in relation to the tax cuts. The problem was the extreme spending increases during his eight years, combined with cutting revenue.

There's no inherent moral basis to claim rich people should always get soaked on taxes, even when there's plenty of revenue such that you have a surplus - it's a question of balancing.

I'd argue unchecked spending expansion, drastically faster than the rate of population increase (ie what has happened in the last 13x years), is far more destructive than tax cuts for the wealthy. If you run a disciplined budget, and an efficient government, you will more than likely be able to bring down taxes for all people over time. The US has done the exact opposite lately, as have so many other failing welfare states across the globe.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#35

Post by musername »

lisper wrote: post #3

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…

I tried to understand your comment twice, but it doesn't work for me. Figures, the comment is wrong.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#36

Post by brasky »

canjobear wrote: post #4
lisper wrote: post #3

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…

It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.

Does government itself work? I think that is what people need to ask themselves.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#37

Post by lisper »

adventured wrote: post #34
lisper wrote: post #3

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…

There's absolutely no inherent problem with tax cuts for the wealthy - or anybody for that matter. The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had). For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his pres…

> There's absolutely no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy

The data say otherwise.

> The problem has always been deficit spending

No. In Kansas they cut spending along with taxes (no choice -- a state can't run a long-term deficit). The result has been such an unmitigated disaster that even many prominent Republicans are now supporting the Democratic candidate for governor.

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

adventured wrote: post #34
lisper wrote: post #3

The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…

There's absolutely no inherent problem with tax cuts for the wealthy - or anybody for that matter. The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had). For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his pres…

> There's absolutely no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy

There's absolutely a problem with relative tax burden shifts from the poor to the wealthy (which is what tax cuts disproportionately for the wealthy are), independently of overall spending/tax balance.

Whether deficit spending is a problem is a completely separate question (though I'd argue that the simple "deficit = bad" position is ludicrous, current spending in excess of revenue is good or bad based on what the spending is for and what the rationally expected outcome of the spending is; sure, interest has a cost, but there are benefits to weight against that cost if the spending is well-chosen.)

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#39

Post by musername »

kyllo wrote: post #10
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #2

Colorado, probably. Washington, not yet. The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-wash... Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot…

And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.

It's also over what, 50 times as much as the production cost?

Re: How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better

#40

Post by musername »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26
krschultz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to keep it all above board & guarantee quality.

The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-o... So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensu…

If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.
Post reply on HN