How marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington is making the world better • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by Vernon092 » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 1:39 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #37

adventured wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Assuming the goal is to reduce revenue and spending, the tax cuts in Kansas have been a huge success.

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

#62

Post by jamesash » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 1:47 AM UTC

People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.

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

#63

Post by lisper » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 1:55 AM UTC

Vernon092 wrote: post #61

lisper wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Assuming the goal is to reduce revenue and spending, the tax cuts in Kansas have been a huge success.

Yes, of course. Just like Jim Crow laws are a success if they keep the races segregated. And ultimately this will be up to the people of Kansas to decide on the quality metric they want to apply to their state's economic policy. But I think it's telling that many prominent Republican politicians are endorsing the Democratic candidate for governor. I don't think they'd be doing that if there was a consensus that the results of Sam Brownback's experiment have been a "huge success."

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

#64

Post by lisper » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 1:58 AM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #49

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…

> The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold? I have no doubt that cannabis should be legal: not only is it relatively harmless, but it's very easy to grow. But what about other more addictive and dangerous drugs?

> Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold?

No. Ron's First Law still applies: all extreme positions are wrong.

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

#65

Post by ddingus » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 2:28 AM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #18

lisper wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that it didn't work , I said it was an unmitigated disaster . A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.

Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs. As for…

Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers.

That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.

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

#66

Post by ddingus » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 2:32 AM UTC

musername wrote: post #40

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 occasio…

That really needs to be qualified.

If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly among people with modest to low financial means.

However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users) They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.

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

#67

Post by ddingus » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 2:37 AM UTC

jamesash wrote: post #62

People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising. Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.

Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there.

Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it.

IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users.

For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well.

If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.

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

#68

Post by pmoriarty » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 2:43 AM UTC

sopooneo wrote: post #22

pmoriarty wrote: post #9

The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of what's happening. I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better. Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's. I hope I may live long…

I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics, though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.

You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press.

Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them.

Psychedelics hold this potential.

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

#69

Post by HelloMcFly » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 3:34 AM UTC

vegedor wrote: post #57

HelloMcFly wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fantastic contribution - thanks for showing up. What about the comment is wrong to you? It made perfect sense to me, but if you've got another perspective then feel free to share it.

You could pose that question to the GP as well, that's the point. Your sarcasm-detector failed.

Indeed it has, indeed it has.

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

#70

Post by dllthomas » Mon, Oct 20, 2014, 6:26 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #41

dllthomas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Didn't stop the British government from apologizing to Alan Turing....

The pardon in 2013 was granted by the Queen, who was already queen and capable of granting him pardon when he was convicted. Her apology in that context could well be meaningful (I don't know whether she gave one alongside the pardon - the pardon could possibly be interpreted as one, but it's a slightly different thing as well).

The 2009 apology by Gordon Brown made somewhat less sense. I don't have any strong opposition to well-intentioned nonsensical theatrics, but I think that it can lead to confusion and that keeping in mind that an organization is a different kind of thing than an individual is important.