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

Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

hightimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 583 posts

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#501

Post by johnnyanmac »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #499
johnnyanmac wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>why do you think your opinions can outweigh other’s? I don't see where this is implied. I took the implication of "your opinion did not sway my own" >Do you have a fleshed out logically sound argument? The "logic" is "larger states in a democracy should have more power because they represent more people". Which naively makes sense. I'm sure game theory would show some consequence of this formation though as a bunch…

If you don’t think your opinion can outweigh other’s here… how does replying even once, without an attached or linked argument, make sense?

It wouldn't male sense, but an opinion in this case is the argument, no? You can disagree with an opinion and also think your own isn't necessarily superior.

In much of internet discourse, your goal isn't even to convince the person to reply to, it's to give more viewpoints to the silent majority who lurk and never comment. Whether they think an opinion is better or worse is up to them.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#502

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mothballed wrote: post #472
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The answer is they didn't even think about us, they just did it. Asserted without evidence. Many parts of the USA until sometime in the 1980s had no building codes. Now many of them do (some still go without). Society has made a slow and steady move towards saying, in effect "whatever and wherever you build, we want to be certain that it meets a set of minimum design and construction standards, and we justify this…

The state has no law about me connecting to the electric grid without any building plans, drawings, or inspection. In fact I did so. That's more connected to others than solar panels are. Just solar panels. They simply forgot. FYI i built the house after the solar panel law passed. So it's not like it's an old house that needs brought up to modern code or something.

Solar panels are generators that backfeed the line. Power utilities are going to take every opportunity to discourage/prevent/penalize the connection of generators to their lines.

Connecting your house to the grid poses more or less no threat to the grid or the linemen who work on it.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#503

Post by [deleted] »

mebizzle wrote: post #448
harles wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is mostly about shifting profits from mom and pop, low regulation hemp industry to wealthy corporations that own dispensaries that have gargantuan regulatory costs that gatekeep out most the competition. That’s a big assertion that needs evidence. I’m strongly in favor of legalization but not deregulation. It was a pretty big loophole that allowed what’s essentially weed to sidestep the regulation their competit…

>(easy legal CBD/hemp, as long as there aren’t other things in there) Your ignorance shows in spades. The arbitrary ban on THC and its analogues prevent chronic pain patients like me (a criminally underserved market) from becoming addicted to the big pharma system. The "other things in there" argument is the same as razorblades in candy, sanctimony to portray dissent as degeneracy.

[deleted]

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#504

Post by potato3732842 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #444
gspencley wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This works very well for the local wealth crowd It works well for everyone. The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too. You're effectively saying that because you're worried about the "local wealth crowd" "capturing" government, you would prefer to make change in government more difficult and representation farther removed for everyone. It's not clear how that w…

> The problem with government that is for and by the people, is that wealthy people are people too. No, this is not a problem with government for and by the people. It is, however, a problem in a system in which economic power (read: wealth) translates (often almost literally) into political power for individuals. Rich people deserve a vote just like everyone else - but nothing more. > you would prefer to make change…

>Yes, mega-corp capture of the largest governmental structures is absolutely a major problem, and one we don't have a good solution to at present. But the existence of that problem doesn't justify a reversion to a system in which local capture becomes easier and more consequential.

It boggles the mind that you can say this with a straight face. What do you think vesting more power at the federal level will do if not cause moneyed interests to work harder to capture it?

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#506

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

AngryData wrote: post #454
bakies wrote: post #31

Cannabis needs to be reclassified. I think this is the right thing to do, actually, but only if it came at the same time as reclassifying. This is a drug market that should be regulated, but not class 1.

Why should cannabis be regulated at all? 99.99% of problems with marijuana that ive ever seen or heard of stem from its either its illegality or its overzealous regulation.

decriminalized cannabis can still be treated with dangerous pesticides or contain high levels of heavy metals or bacteria that cause serious illness.

i used to be of the mind that decrim was preferable to legalization but testing is a pretty important part of making sure you're getting the safest products.

a lot of people in favor of decrim are either bad actors or are under the mistaken belief that all their flower is coming from some nice hippies who only use organic fertilizer and good vibes.

the legacy market was pretty much exactly the same as any other black market: full of people who were in it for the money and didn't care what it took to produce the highest yield at the greatest margin.

now we have legacy actors gone "legit" AND opportunists who got into the market post-legalization who still have the same profit motive above all else.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#507

Post by potato3732842 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #121
giantg2 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DC?

yes

Surely you see the irony in the guy from DC wanting more direct democracy at a point in the nation's history when "drop a nuke on DC, see if things improve" would probably be a winning ballot measure in most states.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#508

Post by mothballed »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #502
mothballed wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state has no law about me connecting to the electric grid without any building plans, drawings, or inspection. In fact I did so. That's more connected to others than solar panels are. Just solar panels. They simply forgot. FYI i built the house after the solar panel law passed. So it's not like it's an old house that needs brought up to modern code or something.

Solar panels are generators that backfeed the line. Power utilities are going to take every opportunity to discourage/prevent/penalize the connection of generators to their lines. Connecting your house to the grid poses more or less no threat to the grid or the linemen who work on it.

What does that have to roof plans and [structural] building plans? You know, the things I called out.

I've never claimed there is a city/rural contrasting point of relevance on documenting the electrical generation capacity of the solar panels.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#509

Post by cthalupa »

potato3732842 wrote: post #507
whimsicalism wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes

Surely you see the irony in the guy from DC wanting more direct democracy at a point in the nation's history when "drop a nuke on DC, see if things improve" would probably be a winning ballot measure in most states.

Very few of those people have much animosity towards everyday people or even federal workers (as people) living in DC, it's about the politicians.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#510

Post by nobody9999 »

cthalupa wrote: post #443
henryfjordan wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, I didn't know that. That's even more nefarious than I thought. Thanks for the info!

I'm not sure I understand how this is particularly nefarious. It complies with the law as written, and results in a significantly better product for those choosing to consume it.

>I'm not sure I understand how this is particularly nefarious. It complies with the law as written, and results in a significantly better product for those choosing to consume it.

Perhaps "nefarious" is too strong a term, but the intent (at least in states that have legal cannabis) AFAICT, is to avoid the regulations around testing for adulterants, potency, etc.

In most states with legalized cannabis, testing for a variety of harmful ingredients and the potency of specific products is required for those taking part in the legalized cannabis trade.

Those growing, packaging and distributing "hemp" products are not subject to such testing regulations.

That may not be nefarious, but avoiding such regulation increases the likelihood of harmful additives (chemical pesticides and other adulterants) and unknown potencies. This would likely increase the chances that unscrupulous vendors will sell (knowingly or unknowingly) harmful/dangerous products.

And given that the products are essentially the same, that gives those who don't have to pay for testing or go through the marketplaces defined by state laws, giving those folks an advantage over those who follow state law.

What's more, folks who avoid extant law through this loophole, are not incentivized to make safe, tested products.

So maybe not "nefarious," but certainly anti-consumer with perverse incentives to create and sell harmful products.

Post reply on HN