Washington voters approve legalized marijuana • Hacker News Board

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#121

Post by drivebyacct2 » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 12:54 AM UTC

agrona wrote: post #89

stephengillie wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just deregulated alcohol last year -- meaning the WA liquor control board stores shut down and we can purchase from grocery stores, with a $2.85 tax per 750ml, on top of the 10% sales tax. The justification is that this will funnel more money into the state's general fund. And the nickname "weed" is apparently appropriate -- growers tell me it's a hearty crop.

In WA, the Sales tax on liquor is 20.5% (plus the per-liter tax)

I was about to say, having lived there over the summer and headed back shortly, I wish I paid a 10% sales tax on alcohol.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#122

Post by drivebyacct2 » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 12:58 AM UTC

speleding wrote: post #102

king_jester wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction. This is going to have a real dollar cost to the state unless we can fix our healthcare system before people who start taki…

> Cannabis does not have a physical addiction characteristic The evidence for a link between Cannabis and increased risk of psychosis is increasing [1]. A patient with psychosis rarely recovers and is extremely costly to society over his lifetime (as well as a personal tragedy, of course). I'm in favour of legalisation but it is something to take into account. [1] http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/content…

I don't really want to deal with the schizophrenia article because frankly, the way it's used in the debate, it's hard to have a fair and honest conversation about it other than: "The science is weak because no one CAN know because it's fucking illegal to study." (er, this sounds like a dismissal of the article, please don't take it as such, it's not meant to be)

That having been said, I think that it is different than what the GP was referring to which is a chemical addictive property (like nicotine) rather than a long/short term side effect (smoking side effects, whether it be tar in your lungs or increased risk of schizophrenia)

[1] Sorry for the language, but the biggest joke of this entire debate is that Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#123

Post by ryanmolden » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 1:35 AM UTC

beatgammit wrote: post #95

blackhole wrote: post #2

Provided we also legalize same-sex marriage, this voting cycle will make me proud to be a Washington native.

Meh, not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision, but I do appreciate that this decision is being made at the state level instead of the national level. I too am proud to be a Washington native in this election, but mostly because of the public charter school system. Being a fiscal conservative, the national election, however, did not go as I had hoped. Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wak…

>Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wake up to

This has always confused me. Are you day trading or holding positions where short term moves massively impact you? Or do you believe the entire market will actually explode? As someone with investments I honestly pay little attention to short term moves as I am investing on far longer time horizons. Or maybe I am just missing how the market going up or down after random event X impacts my life in any meaningful way or portends really anything. I do see how both sides like to claim the market is validating whatever they are currently trying to "sell", I think these people massively over-simplify "the market" and its moves, for obvious reasons.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#124

Post by exolxe » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 1:53 AM UTC

It's interesting to consider how much of the legislative and voting process actually impacts the act.

A lot of voters probably view marijuana as positive/neutral, though how many were actually swayed by the 25% tax?

In the end there's a larger systemic problem, where you compromise and are either hurting consumers of a neutral/positive product or benefiting as a governmental system by feeding off of a negative product. Either way, regardless of your views it's a forward step for society, though with somewhat perverse implications.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#125

Post by Tuna-Fish » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 8:52 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #100

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that. I would like to point out that a 25% tax on legally produced marijuana is very low . A 500% tax would still be low. Considering the amounts consumed, growing marijuana is really easy and cheap. Without the legislation against it, when grown in volume by professionals it should have a cost per kg nearing that of hydroponic cabbage, or some 1000 times less than…

That doesn't mean the tax is low. Cabbage is grown like cabbage, and it doesn't have 25% tax on it. And what is 500% tax? You pay 4x your revenue for the right to grow marijuana? It's not a tax then, it's prohibitive fine.

The point is that once there is no legislation to stop it, someone on minimum wage would be able to buy as much weed as he's able to use without making a noticeable dent on his incomes.

A lot of the world, including the country I live in, believes that products that are harmful to the society should be taxed to discourage their use. Harmful products typically include things like alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks and candy. If marijuana would be legalized, it would certainly fall in that category. (It's important to note that a lot of the people supporting legalization don't think that marijuana is good, it's just that legalization would be immensely less bad than the present situation.)

As such, as I see it, the question of how much tax should marijuana have on it depends mostly on how much it can be taxed while still killing the business of the black market sellers.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#126

Post by ht_th » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 11:34 AM UTC

illuminate wrote: post #117

beatgammit wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh, not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision, but I do appreciate that this decision is being made at the state level instead of the national level. I too am proud to be a Washington native in this election, but mostly because of the public charter school system. Being a fiscal conservative, the national election, however, did not go as I had hoped. Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wak…

"not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision ... Being a fiscal conservative" Not to argue with your beliefs, but why call yourself a "fiscal conservative" if you're also a social conservative? Generally people make the distinction only in the case that they do not apply religious mores to politics.

Because there are other reasons to be against same-sex marriage laws. I am an advocate of a general marriage law, allowing two consenting adults to marry whatever their gender, race, age, and so on. However, I don't think it is a good idea to have two different laws for the same thing, marriage, as it makes the law-system more messy, difficult to maintain, opening up all possibilities of treatment differences, and so on. I prefer to have the law system as simple and clear as possible and amending laws or adding laws to cover all kinds of exceptions is detrimental to that.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#127

Post by Retric » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

trhtrsh wrote: post #106

smsm42 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean the tax is low. Cabbage is grown like cabbage, and it doesn't have 25% tax on it. And what is 500% tax? You pay 4x your revenue for the right to grow marijuana? It's not a tax then, it's prohibitive fine.

500% tax is isn't 4x revenue. Either the consumer pays the tax, so its 4x the product cost, or the vendor pays it, and prices the tax into the sale price, so the tax us 83% of revenue. Take an example: water costs 2cents/gallon. a 500% tax would make water 10cents a gallon. That would be enough to promote agressive conservation, but not prohibitively expensive. Soda costs $1/pint, for 500% markup. Yet it's not prohib…

Municipal water costs in the US average around .0015 cents a gallon. Flushing your toilets with .0075 cents per gallon would not be prohibitive, growing crops with .0075 cents per gallon water would be. However, far more water goes to growing crops than flushing toilets.

PS: There are actually huge swings in water costs in different areas, which does impact water use significantly.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#128

Post by illuminate » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 4:28 PM UTC

ht_th wrote: post #126

illuminate wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision ... Being a fiscal conservative" Not to argue with your beliefs, but why call yourself a "fiscal conservative" if you're also a social conservative? Generally people make the distinction only in the case that they do not apply religious mores to politics.

Because there are other reasons to be against same-sex marriage laws. I am an advocate of a general marriage law, allowing two consenting adults to marry whatever their gender, race, age, and so on. However, I don't think it is a good idea to have two different laws for the same thing, marriage, as it makes the law-system more messy, difficult to maintain, opening up all possibilities of treatment differences, and so…

How are they "two different laws"? The amended law IS the law.

"I don't think it is a good idea to have two different laws for the same thing, marriage, as it makes the law-system more messy, difficult to maintain, opening up all possibilities of treatment differences, and so on. I prefer to have the law system as simple and clear as possible and amending laws or adding laws to cover all kinds of exceptions is detrimental to that."

The "law system" is meant to be adaptable. Simplicity is not to be prized over human rights. This seems to be an internalized moral argument masquerading as some sort of strange appeal.

Which, again, is your personal opinion, but it is unnecessary to suggest that it is in the interest of society to avoid all "legal complications". The law can adapt to any complexities of reality.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#129

Post by illuminate » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 4:41 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #71

Firehed wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers. But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and o…

The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care. I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data o…

"There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction."

It helps to actually read the quality data you're supposedly referring to.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#130

Post by illuminate » Thu, Nov 08, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #23

Kadin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? "The government", no; but many voters, yes. There are a lot of people who don't use cannabis and don't have any interest in whether or not it's legal, but are swayed by the potential tax revenues. It was the bargain necessary to get the votes to pass it. Perhaps in the future the tax rate will be stepped down if it's really felt to be excessive or if th…

the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places. I'm sure the government will want their cut soon enough, then it'll be 25% state tax + whatever the federal government decides to charge. As it is, no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legi…

"no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner"

They aren't mentioning this because of the "fact" that the federal government will not change its stance until the states change their stance. It's not immutable.