Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana • Hacker News Board

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#201

Post by vidarh » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 11:49 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #191

sv123 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a duty to their shareholders to grow revenue and stay in business. If something threatens that, they will fight it. Like many other commercial enterprise they will spend money on lobbying to protect profits, in this case it is just particularly sickening how big the problem has become. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBDvxy5qQY

You just proved my point! Doctors who work in a group practice have a fiduciary duty to grow revenue. Does that mean doctors cut corners to make more money? I'm sure some do. Do private prisons fight relaxing laws to make more money? I'm sure some do, but most don't.

> Do private prisons fight relaxing laws to make more money? I'm sure some do, but most don't.

Corrections Corporation of America does, and they account for more than 80,000 of the 133,000 private prison beds in the US. GEO Group does, and they account for about 49,000. Together they thus represents the vast majority of private prisons in the US.

Both of them are part of ALEC - a DC base lobbying group that develops model legislation that it then pushes as a means for state legislators to be "tough on crime".

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#202

Post by vidarh » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 11:52 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #90

waterlesscloud wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this situation is overstated a lot. Something like 8% of prisoners in the US are in privately run prisons, which could be a problem, but it's not the massive number that is often implied.

That's true, but 8% of anything in the US is a lot. There's roughly 2.2 million prisoners so maybe 200k of them are held in private prisons. And as someone points out upthread, when you add in all that prison-building, the firms that deliver services tot he corrections market and so on, it adds up to a lot of economic activity.

About 133,000 as of 2013. And two companies (CCA and GEO Group), both of whom are aggressively fighting for tougher laws as a matter of course have about 129,000 bed capacity.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#203

Post by corin_ » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 11:56 AM UTC

ashleyw wrote: post #116

josho wrote: post #91

I can't help but to wonder if the tobacco lobby is somehow involved. For decades society fought against smoking and has largely won. So, what happened to all of those tobacco crops? I wonder if that industry is behind the legalize movement so they can shift their production to another crop. Interesting historical fact is that initial tensions over marijuana came about because slaves, and later Mexican labourers were…

Another thing to consider is that, at least in Europe, cannabis + tobacco joints are very popular. So not only could big tobacco quickly gain traction in the cannabis world if it were legal, but it'd also help hold onto its crashing tobacco sales.

I suspect if it was legal, a lot of people would move towards tobacco-substitutes to mix in their joint rather than actual tobacco. Amsterdam coffeeshops already sell pre-rolleds with "mix" in them (since smoking tobacco is illegal in there), I'm a cigarette smoker myself and I have no issues replacing tobacco with "mix" when I'm over there.

(But right now for typical weed smokers: "mix" isn't easily found to buy, while tobacco is always easily on hand. If it was sold in legal shops they could offer mix at the same time, something there's no incentive for illegal dealers to do.)

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#204

Post by toyg » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 12:30 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #172

toyg wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jim Crow laws limited people's rights, legalization expands people's rights. Jim Crow laws was an arbitrary governmental restriction, legalization removes the arbitrary governmental restriction. As far as I know, those objections are irrelevant -- there is nothing saying "expanding people rights" or "removing governmental restrictions" are preferable compared to the opposite acts. As long as two acts of law both ab…

Well, maybe for you expanding rights and removing rights is the same thing. For me, it's not. Actually, I remember there was such thing as a Constitution where some guys wrote that people have the rights and government should be restricted in curtailing these rights, and they seemed to think that people's rights are preferable and government restrictions can be made only in specific limited areas. But what do they kn…

> I remember there was such thing as a Constitution where some guys wrote that people have the rights and government should be restricted in curtailing these rights, and they seemed to think that people's rights are preferable and government restrictions can be made only in specific limited areas.

I think you're jumbling up various documents there.

> After all, Jim Crow laws were approved by many courts and were considered very constitutional for a long time. So for you there was no problem with them?

From a legal standpoint, no, there was no problem (well, except for state-sponsored school segregation, which was ruled unconstitutional). From my (and likely yours) moral and cultural standpoint, they were terrible and this eventually resulted in the act that abolished them all. Both the act that instituted them and the act that abolished them were perfectly legitimate in their own way.

Morality and law are different things. The former can provide impetus for forging the latter, but confusing them is a Bad Thing and it's what leads you to Iran.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#205

Post by toyg » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 12:40 PM UTC

eric_h wrote: post #161

dmsinger wrote: post #85

This is very interesting considering Alaska has some strict alcohol laws. There are many areas that are completely dry, and alcohol is very expensive (black market). It's generally this way due to crime and abuse. Will these areas kneejerk the same restrictions with marijuana, or will they wait to see how the community reacts? /serious off It's illegal to give a moose alcohol in Fairbanks: http://www.legalsource360.c…

> It's illegal to give a moose alcohol in Fairbanks This sounds like a perfectly reasonable law. Imagine the damage a 1500 lb drunk bull moose would do.

I guess somebody actually experienced it, so they wrote down for good that it's a Bad Idea™.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#206

Post by TylerE » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 2:41 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #150

TylerE wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This cuts both ways.... do you really think, that, say, Mississippi, should be able to inact anything 51% of the voters vote for? It'd be back to the Jim Crow days.

We're talking not about "anything". We're talking about specific thing where the law enforcement enforces arbitrary prohibition against the will of the same people they pretend to protect. Comparing this to Jim Crow laws makes no sense - Jim Crow laws limited people's rights, legalization expands people's rights. Jim Crow laws was an arbitrary governmental restriction, legalization removes the arbitrary governmental…

Ahem: http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/05/...

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#207

Post by mikeash » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 3:12 PM UTC

WildUtah wrote: post #194

mikeash wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marijuana laws are up to Congress, not the executive. They have discretion in how they enforce the laws to an extent, but they shouldn't just ignore them.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 grants the head of the Food and Drug Administration authority to designate and remove illegal drugs from the schedules of controlled substances. The FDA can remove marijuana at any time and as long as the DEA director doesn't object, that is the law. The DEA and FDA directors serve at the pleasure of the president. Thus, Obama can legalize marijuana if he wants to. He doesn't rem…

Interesting! I had thought that at least some drugs like marijuana were directly enshrined in the law.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#208

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 4:04 PM UTC

dbrannan wrote: post #192

jerrysievert wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that someone whose brain is not developed should not be using mind-altering anything, what you described is essentially puberty. Heck, these kids shouldn't be drinking coffee or caffeinated soda, either.

I can clearly see the popular opinion (reddit/hacker news) is that marijuana is harmless. My professional opinion is different, however, and over the course of my career I have seen its affects first hand. Laugh and down vote me if you will, but the negative affects are real and damaging to youth and the research backs me up. http://www.livescience.com/37889-marijuana-users-lack-motiva...

Without administering chemical tests to all of your students, you can't know with certainty which ones are using.

Sure, if a student has problems from it you will be able to observe that, but it's flawed reasoning to go from "I observe some students having problems" to "Using always leads to those problems".

And I don't naively believe that marijuana is harmless, but if you give me a choice between prohibition for everyone and (further support for) programs that reach out to students that exhibit sudden changes in behavior, it isn't very hard to decide.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#209

Post by chaostheory » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

corin_ wrote: post #200

chaostheory wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but has there been evidence of the cartels funding political campaigns in the US?

If they were it would almost certainly be through a front in such a way that it wasn't publicly known about unless/until a scandal broke stopping that particular incident. As to whether that's likely to be happening... I've absolutely no idea, for all I know it could be extremely likely, or conspiracy theory level.

I'm really very skeptical when it comes to the US. Why? It's very difficult for them to transport money since they're mostly shut out of the international banking system. Even when they get some access, it doesn't last long (see HSBC).

Another reason is I feel that most bribes in the US are more subtle: they're in the form of political campaign funding, non-profit funding, a future board member, and so on... You need access to the banking system to do that stuff easily.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#210

Post by corin_ » Thu, Nov 06, 2014, 5:29 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #209

corin_ wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they were it would almost certainly be through a front in such a way that it wasn't publicly known about unless/until a scandal broke stopping that particular incident. As to whether that's likely to be happening... I've absolutely no idea, for all I know it could be extremely likely, or conspiracy theory level.

I'm really very skeptical when it comes to the US. Why? It's very difficult for them to transport money since they're mostly shut out of the international banking system. Even when they get some access, it doesn't last long (see HSBC). Another reason is I feel that most bribes in the US are more subtle: they're in the form of political campaign funding, non-profit funding, a future board member, and so on... You need…

The impression I've always had was that money laundering, as long as they dont mind losing a big chuck of their cash by doing it, is pretty easy - and therefore if they saw the value in getting it into a legal banking system (to lobby through a non-illegal front) it wouldn't be impossible, just more expensive than lobbying with legal money. But the extent of my knowledge on money laundering comes 30% from an old friend who used to work for a bank detecting it and 70% from breaking bad, so could easily be wrong!