11–20 of 145 posts
"David Simon, creator of The Wire, says new US drug laws help only 'white, middle-class kids'" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/25/the-wire-creato...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that you own your own body, then it would make sense. I wonder what people will say in 100 years. Will they laugh at us for letting people with the label "government" lay claim on how we use our own bodies? I would think so.
Perhaps they will all be incredibly conservative and religious. It's a cheap trick to claim that your own view is the view of the future.
It looks like hacker news is in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that you own your own body, then it would make sense. I wonder what people will say in 100 years. Will they laugh at us for letting people with the label "government" lay claim on how we use our own bodies? I would think so.
Perhaps they will all be incredibly conservative and religious. It's a cheap trick to claim that your own view is the view of the future.
"David Simon, creator of The Wire, says new US drug laws help only 'white, middle-class kids'" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/25/the-wire-creato...
I get that he wants the whole thing to fall at once (but at the same time wants decriminalization, not legalization?), but that simply isn't something that we can accomplish in any foreseeable future, not for several more decades at least. Just getting the public to turn around on pot (something that is genuinely mild, not physically addictive, and is plainly mis-classified as Schedule I) has taken a ton of effort. Furthermore the only reason that effort has been so successful is because pot is so widely used; somewhere around half of all Americans have smoked pot at some point in their life. You don't have any sort of similar base on which to launch a publicity campaign for crack (in the specific case of crack, at least we've got the Fair Sentencing Act. Certainly a good start, but that has a hell of a long way to go).
[1] Per TFA: "Since Mayor Bloomberg took office in 2002, there have been almost 460,000 misdemeanor marijuana arrests. And while blacks and Hispanics make up 45% of pot smokers in New York City, they account for 86% of possession arrests." Saying that legalization of pot only helps middle class white kids is just plain wrong. It is so stunningly wrong that it seems almost maliciously so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ummm...also because they like to get toasted. I think this plan is discriminatory. "under my proposal, only adults age 21 and over would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana" Why shouldn't 18-20 year olds have the right to blaze up? Those are the prime toking years.
Probably because 21 is the minimum age for buying alcohol, too (I think).
If they did legalize it, what would happen to the thousands sitting in jail / probation for pot offenses. Oh were sry, it's ok now?
In reality I expect we would let them continue to rot in jail since they were technically breaking the law at the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps that's because technical people tend to look at facts when they analyze a situation?
Ummm...also because they like to get toasted. I think this plan is discriminatory. "under my proposal, only adults age 21 and over would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana" Why shouldn't 18-20 year olds have the right to blaze up? Those are the prime toking years.
Not really, I prefer drinking. ...coincidentally, the legal age for doing that is 21. How discriminatory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ummm...also because they like to get toasted. I think this plan is discriminatory. "under my proposal, only adults age 21 and over would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana" Why shouldn't 18-20 year olds have the right to blaze up? Those are the prime toking years.
These are the years it's most likely to tip certain folks over the precipice into mental illness. A tiny minority are at risk, but those are the years.