41–50 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a different person when I was twelve. Would still apologise to anyone I ever hurt back then. It's way better than stubborness.
Organizations are not people. Treating them as if they are makes for poor reasoning.
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…
I tried to understand your comment twice, but it doesn't work for me. Figures, the comment is wrong.
What about the comment is wrong to you? It made perfect sense to me, but if you've got another perspective then feel free to share it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-o... So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensu…
If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasio…
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…
It is not unambiguous that Prohibition didn't work. http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level."
If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…
Alcohol prohibition is an apt historical lesson, especially regarding violence and black markets, but there is a significant difference: the intended targets. Alcohol was outlawed primarily to target men, particularly the violent and alcoholic, and was a stand-in for women's issues. It was the first time domestic violence began to be (indirectly) talked about, and was a major driver for women's suffrage and activism.…
Cannabis (and pretty much every psychoactive drugs except alcohol) is prohibited in almost every countries in the world. Isn't it a bit simplistic to think that oppressing minorities was the only reason behind it?
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…
Alcohol prohibition is an apt historical lesson, especially regarding violence and black markets, but there is a significant difference: the intended targets. Alcohol was outlawed primarily to target men, particularly the violent and alcoholic, and was a stand-in for women's issues. It was the first time domestic violence began to be (indirectly) talked about, and was a major driver for women's suffrage and activism.…
Do you have a "when" in mind there? Cannabis has a colorful history in the USA, and it does not seem like its entire history has been centered on "suppressing the Other". To my knowledge it was originally regulated as a part of the opium/narcotics laws that swept the world in the early 1900's.
It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted.
It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco.
It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.
I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far. It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted. It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco. It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" p…
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it. Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been simil…
Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold? I have no doubt that cannabis should be legal: not only is it relatively harmless, but it's very easy to grow. But what about other more addictive and dangerous drugs?
I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far. It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted. It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco. It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" p…
Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it.
That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.