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

521–530 of 583 posts

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#521

Post by johnnyanmac »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #520
johnnyanmac wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This really doesn’t make sense. I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” By your logic if I replied with that to every comment chain in every HN post adjusting X to each topic… then I would become the most productive HN user of all time.

>I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X”

Yes, I browse reddit every now and then. It's a shame the Alt-Right pipeline hijacked this. They realized that being loud is better than being correct.

I'm a bit confused on how we got onto a tangent about productivity, though. All I was talking about came down to "opinions are arguments, and restating an opinion (in good faith) often means you aren't convinced of another opinion". They're opinions, they aren't inherently right or wrong.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#522

Post by whimsicalism »

potato3732842 wrote: post #504
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think people are far too cynical. A highly visible federal government is in many ways more defensible from monied interests than many many small scale decisionmakers.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#523

Post by mullingitover »

Spivak wrote: post #259
mullingitover wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole process was the epitome of anti-democratic principles by design: the Senate is expressly an anti-democratic institution (wildly different levels of representation/power for different voters in different states), and the whole standoff centered on protecting the filibuster, which makes the anti-democratic senate even less democratic by allowing a tiny group within that tiny group to shut down the entire law…

Hard disagree, I think time has proven that the filibuster (or some process like it) is necessary as a stabilizing effect on democracy. Making legislation easier to block than pass makes it so that small swings in representation, say 51-49 to 49-51 can't produce massive swings in policy. The minority party being able to, with effort, stop certain pieces of legislation they find abhorrent by raising the bar to it pass…

Not clear on what we’re disagreeing about: yes, anti democratic mechanisms have a stabilizing effect on democracy. They accomplish this by thwarting democracy.

I’m not saying whether it’s good or bad, it is what it is, but these anti-democratic mechanisms are intentional.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#524

Post by MichaelZuo »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #521
MichaelZuo wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really doesn’t make sense. I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” By your logic if I replied with that to every comment chain in every HN post adjusting X to each topic… then I would become the most productive HN user of all time.

>I can also just say:”All the opinions presented so far are deficient, here is my new, better, opinion X” Yes, I browse reddit every now and then. It's a shame the Alt-Right pipeline hijacked this. They realized that being loud is better than being correct. I'm a bit confused on how we got onto a tangent about productivity, though. All I was talking about came down to "opinions are arguments, and restating an opinion…

If opinions were worth, or equivalent to, any kind of argument whatsoever… then my example holds true.

I would become the most productive HN user ever… anyone could do so by following that… so clearly opinions cannot be worth anything.

All the opinions you’ve ever written, and will ever write, must literally all add up to less than one solid argument.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#525

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mothballed wrote: post #508
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said:

> 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.

But since your house is (presumably) not a generator, no, that's still less connected to others than even a single solar panel would be.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#526

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

wara23arish wrote: post #514
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Isn’t the problem the same with both systems but one just scales a lot better and is more dangerous? Im intrigued by why you believe federal level should override local variations. It seems so counter intuitive.

I haven't argued for the federal level to override local variations, in fact I specifically said that it's an important problem to figure out how to avoid this.

The first problem is that city/county/state governments in general have completely inadequate power to confront national or trans-national corporations. The second problem is that some things (e.g. health insurance) really do work better when handled at the largest possible scale.

There are clearly things, like running the municipal rec center, where local government is better positioned than any federal government agency probably ever could be (though I stress "probably"). But there are lots of things where the opposite is true.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#527

Post by mothballed »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #525
mothballed wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You said: > 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. But since your house is (presumably) not a generator, no, that's still less connected to others than even a single solar panel would be.

What on earth do roof and [structural] building plans have to do with eletrical connectivity to the grid? You're losing the plot and trying to lead us down another sideshow, that is the things i called out as the specific things city dwellers forgot I dont have that they require for the solar permit. 'Society' already decided i don't need those for literally anything else residential but solar.

The most likely explanation is they simply forgot rural folks often don't have roof plans, and should have written an exception in such case that the solar permit could be issued without them.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#528

Post by the_gastropod »

brightball wrote: post #430
the_gastropod wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACA was literally dreamed up by The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. This idea that it was some partisan thing Democrats forced on the country is hilarious. It was always a bending-over-backwards compromise solution to maintain the for-profit system. There’s a reason that, after 15 years freaking out about it, Republicans still have no plan for replacing it. Virtually any change, outside of more soci…

Party lines... Senate: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396 House: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2010/h165 There's always been a plan to replace it with the only economically viable plan that can reduce the cost of healthcare. The same plan Dr. Ben Carson has been talking about for years. It's the only solution proposed by anyone from either party that would work.

Yes. Along party lines. Why do you think every Republican voted against the conservative think-tank produced healthcare bill? I certainly have my theory...

Yes. Carson introduced that "plan" in 2015, right? Why do you reckon Republicans have not pushed it forward once in over the past 10 years despite twice controlling all parts of the federal government? Because it's D.O.A. flawed.

It does what basically every other non-starter contemporary Republican health insurance idea does: willfully misunderstands how health insurance works to appeal to rich healthy folks whose costs will be reduced at the expense of the poor sick saps who inevitably will die as a result. It's a straightforwardly eugenicist plan that would make Ebenezer Scrooge blush.

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#529

Post by cthalupa »

nobody9999 wrote: post #510
cthalupa wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 v…

> 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.

My (perhaps incorrect) understanding is that the majority of the sales are happening in the 26 states without recreational marijuana, however, and that many consumers in the recreational states are still choosing to go with the dispensary product vs. head shop/liquor store/etc.

As someone in a non-rec state, as much as I would prefer the dispensary option with stricter regulations, it's still much more regulated than "the dude whose house i show up with and venmo him some money and get a bag that came from god knows where"

Re: Hemp ban hidden inside government shutdown bill

#530

Post by sharts »

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.

THC is for getting high.
Post reply on HN