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

Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

adn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 218 posts

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#101

Post by nate_meurer »

refurb wrote: post #95
nate_meurer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, profitable. For example, prison guard unions lobby ferociously against relaxing drug laws, in order to protect prison guards' jobs and salaries: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/ http://mic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-how-califor... EDIT: Here's a cute quote from Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest for-profit prison companies: "any changes with respect to dr…

It's true they have a financial incentive to maintain current drug laws, but those same incentives exist for many important roles. If someone comes up with a cure for cancer, a lot of oncologists are going to be out of a job. Does that mean that oncologists are actively suppressing cancer cures?

This might be the most useless analogy I have ever encountered. I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you but I honestly have no idea what your point is.

Corrections Corporation of America and other private prison companies openly fight efforts to relax drugs laws. Same for prison guard unions; In 2008 the CCPoA, California's largest prison guard union, was the most active opponent of Prop 5, which would have expanded treatment for non-violent drug offenders, and reduced criminal penalties for non-violent drug crimes [1].

As far as I know, oncologists are not fighting cancer research in order to protect their careers.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_5_%2820...

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#103

Post by trhway »

mason240 wrote: post #71
kemiller wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@metrix many prisons are run by for-profit companies. It costs the taxpayers a lot, but there is profit to be made, and some elected officials benefit at least indirectly. edit: awkward wording

>many prisons are run by for-profit companies. Citation for the "Many"? Only about 5% of prisoners are in private prisons.

if you add prison guards unions - which are formally non-profit, and that only means that they have no taxes to pay and they have nobody else to give the formal profit away, and as result they have all the money they collect to themselves - you'd get pretty much 100% of US prisons run by organizations with direct financial interests in growing the prisons in size and number.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#104

Post by wavefunction »

toyg wrote: post #49
wavefunction wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it depress prices for other crops? The economic phenomena you're describing is called "replacement" but it's not like farmers aren't growing opium poppies because cannabis is so easy to grow.

Cannabis and opium poppies cannot be used to produce the same end-product. From what I understand, hemp can replace cotton in most end-products; being much easier to grow (and hence cheaper / more plentiful), it could potentially flood markets earlier reserved to cotton, hence depressing prices. Say you have two farmers; one grows cannabis, the other cotton. Because cannabis is easier to grow, the cannabis farmer has…

I am well aware about the two plant species and their uses by humans.

The original poster said MJ, which is not hemp. Marijuana is psychoactive and hemp is not, though they are the same species. The economic idea of "replacement" is that one good (Coca-Cola) can be replaced by a comparable good (Pepsi) based on price discrimination or differences in quality. My point is that MJ can displace a comparable good (another narcotic like opium) but it cannot replace corn or cotton as the uses of all these products are different.

Now maybe you mean hemp can replace/displace cotton or corn? I definitely agree hemp can displace cotton but that's because the water requirements, fertilization and effort spent harvesting are so much easier for hemp than cotton.

I am really confused by your assertion that a cannabis farmer is going to sell their MJ "on the cotton market." Maybe you mean that resources that would have been spent purchasing cotton commodities will instead be used to purchase cannabis commodities?

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#105

Post by politician »

anigbrowl wrote: post #87
Alupis wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue at the Federal level is not too long ago the US went around bullying UN nations into signing a unified drug treaty which is in effect for I believe 90 years. The idea was that if all countries agree on banning certain drugs, it can have a more unified effort in eradicating said drugs. It mostly targeted hard drugs, but marijuana is also named in the treaty. It would be very difficult for the US to back out…

That's a very good point - it's the basic reason that Obama can't 'end the drug war with a stroke of his pen' as some people seem to imagine, because treaties ratified by the US have almost constitutional standing in legal terms, and need to be formally derogated rather than legislated away. While the US could certainly do so without suffering meaningful sanctions or major geopolitical harm over the long term, indiff…

The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#106

Post by anigbrowl »

politician wrote: post #105
anigbrowl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very good point - it's the basic reason that Obama can't 'end the drug war with a stroke of his pen' as some people seem to imagine, because treaties ratified by the US have almost constitutional standing in legal terms, and need to be formally derogated rather than legislated away. While the US could certainly do so without suffering meaningful sanctions or major geopolitical harm over the long term, indiff…

The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated.

I think up-or-down votes or referenda are more appropriate for that. Multilateral treaties are inherently legislative documents, and legislating-to-legislate looks like a self-defeating increase in complexity - there's a reason that governments have executive as well as legislative functions, even though they ,may not always yield results we like in the short term.

I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now.

I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#107

Post by sliverstorm »

chaostheory wrote: post #66
evincarofautumn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe illicit growers and sellers in those areas want to avoid government intervention in their process and profits? I have no idea how much voting power that industry has, though.

I don't feel that growers currently have much voting power or even enough money to influence elections.

Maybe not the growers themselves, but there's a lot of money there, and I guarantee somewhere along the line it flows through the hands of people with wealth & power to protect.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#108

Post by showerst »

chimeracoder wrote: post #51
showerst wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in DC the situation will be that private individuals can't sell it, but there will be licensed dispensaries. That's pending congressional approval though. (Really it's pending congress not striking it down, which they seem loathe to do except for one very zealous committee member without much power).

> I think in DC the situation will be that private individuals can't sell it, but there will be licensed dispensaries. No, the DC provision does not allow for licensed dispensaries for recreational use[0]. (Dispensaries for medical use have just begun opening under the medical law passed in 2011, but this is separate from the situation in Colorado post-Amendment 64). > That's pending congressional approval though. (R…

Oops you're right, I thought the initiative had a provision for the dispensaries to sell to everyone, but that will have to happen in the city council. Grosso has a bill pending for it, but media doesn't seem to think the council is in a hurry; they'll at least wait out congress.

I'm trying to track down my source for the approval, but the general thought seems to be that the republicans other than Andy Harris (aforementioned super opposed member) are less likely to start a fight where they're in the minority on a "state's rights" issue during what should be a quiet legislative session.

Harris isn't a committee chair so he can't bring up the ban/amendment without help. I don't know the committee politics to well enough to know this is likely; but usually they sneak these things in as budget riders which takes the approval of the committee chair.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#109

Post by mturmon »

chaostheory wrote: post #32

I still find it very strange that California wasn't one of the first states to legalize marijuana. Now there are three states ahead. EDIT: Looking at the results, these counties that voted 'No' surprised me Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Palmdale, Pasadena, Torrance, Inglewood, Burbank, Carson, Santa Monica etc.) Santa Clara County (San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Gilr…

I live in LA county. The reason the initiative failed in LA county is that we had a rash of fly-by-night MMJ dispensaries popping up everywhere. They looked shady: armed guards standing outside, blacked-out storefront windows, typically not run/owned by anyone identifiable in the community. The look from the street was like a massage parlor or strip club.

When cities, like LA proper, tried to regulate them by establishing a permit process, the MMJ dispensaries fought back in the courts (which is their right), and there ensued a legal cat-and-mouse game that stretched on for years. Because medical MJ is used in CA as a surrogate for legalization, it was hard to have an honest debate.

Given the failure of local regulation, there was a backlash against going farther. It'll work itself out. And then we'll see how it looks, because as with everything else under the sun, legalization won't be a panacea.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#110

Post by mturmon »

ghshephard wrote: post #57
chaostheory wrote: post #32

I still find it very strange that California wasn't one of the first states to legalize marijuana. Now there are three states ahead. EDIT: Looking at the results, these counties that voted 'No' surprised me Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Palmdale, Pasadena, Torrance, Inglewood, Burbank, Carson, Santa Monica etc.) Santa Clara County (San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Gilr…

The marijuana growers in California did not support legalization as they felt (correctly) that it would impact their profit. They supported the status quo, which was enough to defeat legalization in California.

That's a second-order effect. The first-order effect is that even large, urban areas like LA did not get behind Prop. 19. The growers have minimal influence on LA voters.
Post reply on HN