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

161–170 of 218 posts

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#161

Post by eric_h »

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.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#162

Post by showerst »

eli wrote: post #153
showerst wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still yes; DC has a 14 member city council that meets frequently with a long legislative session, and a mayor. Even the smallest states have a few hundred legislators in 2 houses, and much shorter legislative calendars to get things done in.

These are ballot initiatives that didn't go through the legislature. And for what it's worth, DC doesn't make it especially easy to get something on the ballot.

The initial steps (decriminalization, medical marijuana) were taken in the council though, and those set the stage.

Your question re:ballot initiatives interested me so I looked it up; signature-wise it takes 5% of DC voters distributed through 5/8 wards to get something on the ballot [0]. That's around 23,000 verified signatures. There are also the normal review periods/court challenges that are common in (nearly?) every state.

In Wyoming it's 15% of registered voters, nearly double DC, plus a fiscal review in addition to the normal court challenges.[1] I can't find anything saying direct initiatives are legal at all in Vermont, except constitutional amendments which come through the legislature [2].

In alaska (bigger but apropos since they legalized too) it takes about 30,000 signatures, and they have much stricter signature rules, including a house-district distribution rule. [3]

Overall it seems that DC is one of the easiest small 'states' to get something on the ballot in, although I have no way to compare how tough the court challenges are between states. Looking at the number of initiatives would be instructive but this comment is already getting long.

[0] https://www.dcboee.org/regulations/initiative_and_referendum...

[1] http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process...

[2] http://ballotpedia.org/List_of_Vermont_ballot_measures

[3] http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process...

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#163

Post by anigbrowl »

anigbrowl wrote: post #125
Alupis wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad. Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things…

You are mistaken. Existing negotiations are geared towards the production of a preliminary draft that would then be subject to legislative debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous... (so much for the legislative branch) I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself s…

PS I don't mean you're mistaken about your disapproval of fast track negotiation - that's a completely valid opinion, albeit one with which I disagree. I just meant you were mistaken in regard to your assertion that the President doesn't need to consult Congress. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#164

Post by anigbrowl »

smsm42 wrote: post #138
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…

Given that the executive branch has prosecutorial discretion and never has been shy of using it when it mattered, I do not believe the "treaties make us do this" argument. Maybe the federal government could not have full de-jure legalize for some technical reasons. But it is completely capable to restrain the zeal of prosecution and reduce both the number of cases and the priority of those to a wide degree. If only t…

I don't disagree about enforcement policy, which is in dire need of a top-to-bottom overhaul. It seems to me that the US could be fully compliant with its treaty obligations and even maintain an unpermissive attitude to drug use without enforcing the paramilitary enforcement tactics that have become commonplace. But the legal/constitutional framework within which drug policy is often overlooked in such debates, which was why I wanted to discuss it here.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#165

Post by toyg »

wavefunction wrote: post #104
toyg wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Cannabis and hemp are basically the same plant -- yes, one is psychoactive and the other is not, but they share cultivation tools and as far as I know, cannabis can be used in the same way hemp is (although the opposite, of course, is not true). At the moment hemp is locked out of the market because it's too similar to cannabis for authorities to just let people grow it; but once cannabis is legalised, hemp will likely make a big comeback, as cannabis grower will grow both cannabis and hemp, if necessary switching between one and the other at very short notice, especially if the price of cotton rises over the one for psychoactive cannabis. Even without switching actual cultivations, as far as I know, you could sell cannabis as hemp (although the opposite is not true) right away.

> I definitely agree hemp can displace cotton

That's what I'm saying. Hemp is much cheaper and it's been shut out of the market only because cannabis was and the two cannot easily be distinguished. Once they're both legal, things will change.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#166

Post by vectorpush »

dbrannan wrote: post #158
vectorpush wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I live in Alaska as a high school teacher. It's still illegal unless you're 21 or over, so I'm not really sure why that would make your job as a high school teacher any more difficult.

It is true that small amounts of pot has been legal in Alaska, but my concern is geared towards greater accessibility. Now that it is legal and will be sold commercially it will be much easier for young adults to attain. Usually the youth will steal from their guardians, just like alcohol. I've been teaching 21 years and I can tell when a student has started smoking pot. When a young person begins smoking their grade…

I don't think increased accessibility is a legitimate concern. A pot smoking parent that can't keep their stash secure from their kids will be equally ineffective whether the pot was purchased from the black market or legally from the grocery store.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#167

Post by mturmon »

crazypyro wrote: post #155
mturmon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 establi…

It might be helpful to note that a major reason for armed guards could be the inability to keep money in proper banks, due to federal laws. When one doesn't allow law abiding citizens to participate in a seemingly reasonable manner, I don't think it is any surprise that criminals and other societal outcasts tend to fill the void.... (As an aside, even with the change to federal regulations earlier this year, it is un…

> ...inability to keep money in proper banks, due to federal laws...

I agree. This contradiction (partly legal, partly not) discouraged typical law-abiding citizens from entering the MMJ business.

I think there was also a tax angle, in that you had a hard time reporting the MMJ income as taxable, but if you didn't, you were evading taxes.

The operator of a dispensary up the street from me was pinched by the feds boarding a private plane with a suitcase containing about $60K in cash. (It's not like it was a flight to Mexico, it was all within CA.)

So, like it or not, because of the way we have regularized MJ, that's the type of incumbent "businesspeople" we have.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#168

Post by toyg »

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…

> 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 abide by US constitutional rules, they are equal in "goodness".

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#169

Post by bradleyjg »

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…

>because treaties ratified by the US have almost constitutional standing in legal terms, and need to be formally derogated rather than legislated away.

As a matter of domestic law, that's not the case. Treaties are on the same level as federal legislation and the last in time controls. There are a series of court cases that disfavor implied abrogragation under comity principles, but if a later-in-time statute is in clear and unavoidable conflict with an earlier treaty, the statute controls.

Re: Alaskans vote to legalize marijuana

#170

Post by [deleted] »

vectorpush wrote: post #166
dbrannan wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is true that small amounts of pot has been legal in Alaska, but my concern is geared towards greater accessibility. Now that it is legal and will be sold commercially it will be much easier for young adults to attain. Usually the youth will steal from their guardians, just like alcohol. I've been teaching 21 years and I can tell when a student has started smoking pot. When a young person begins smoking their grade…

I don't think increased accessibility is a legitimate concern. A pot smoking parent that can't keep their stash secure from their kids will be equally ineffective whether the pot was purchased from the black market or legally from the grocery store.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN