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

Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

mynorthwest.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 142 posts

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#71

Post by lukeschlather »

Firehed wrote: post #26
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…

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 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 taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years.

Again, I voted for the bill, but I agree with the argument that it has hidden deferred costs.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#72

Post by genwin »

askimto wrote: post #4
blackhole wrote: post #2

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

Y'all also fell for another initiative from Tim Eyman.

Why is a roadblock to higher taxes bad? As long as the current tax % is sufficient, I don't see why that % shouldn't be sustained indefinitely.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#73

Post by nyargh »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

I'm not someone who would take advantage of the legalization of marijuana, but I am in favor of legalization because I don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you can or can't do. If drinking is legal, smoking weed should be too. I understand the concept behind a tax on marijuana, but I don't understand a 25% tax on every stage of the process... If you're saying that it's legal to use marijuana respons…

Some historical context may be helpful here: For a very long time Washington state had a highly regulated, tiered program for selling liquor. Very recently, this was privatized. The marijuana legislation that passed, I-502, very closely apes this structure - which kept financial interest in the production, distribution and retail of liquor separate - hence the separate taxation at each "tier".

The explanation here could best be summed up as "the devil you know".

Further, as with liquor, this decriminalizes personal possession without requiring tax stamps. This tax structure is in place to regulate and generate revenue from the production, distribution an retail of marijuana - not necessarily the consumption.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#74

Post by pstuart »

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…

Obviously more people will try it if it is legal, but it's pretty ubiquitous now and most adults have already had the chance to sample and decide.

As for the "cost to society", I have to imagine that any damage from use (and there's not much evidence for it) would be countered by the decrease in real damage done by the War on Drugs.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#75

Post by opiumden »

gokhan wrote: post #51
WalterBright wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do have Prohibition - before, after, and during. Consumption went up during, and back down afterwards. Crime went up during, and back down afterwards.

Being addicted to alcohol is much harder than being addicted to meth, no? From Wikipedia: ...Methamphetamine has a high potential for abuse and addiction, activating the psychological reward system by triggering a cascading release of dopamine in the brain characterized by Amphetamine /Stimulant psychosis. Chronic abuse may also lead to post-withdrawal syndrome, a result of methamphetamine-induced neurotoxicity to do…

I have junkie friends. I also have alcoholic friends. The winner of the "who is more fucked up" medal goes to those without a good support system or those whose underlying issues / mental illness / pathology are harder to treat. Spend enough time around addicts and you realize the drug of choice doesn't matter. I knew a girl in rehab who was a compulsive shopper. I didn't even realize that was a thing but there's a fancy word for it and everything: Oniomania.

This comment is making me realize that I have a lot of fucked up friends.

Anyway, I'm fighting an anecdote with an anecdote but the most harmful thing about addiction is getting thrown in jail, getting jail marked down on your permanent record, being afraid to ask for help (or help being unavailable) because Johnny Law is getting tough on crime. The substance doesn't matter.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#76

Post by jlgreco »

flyinRyan wrote: post #60
Tiktaalik wrote: post #15

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, effect this has north of the border in British Columbia. Marijuana decriminalization and legalization has often been discussed in Canada, but one of the main arguments against a change in the law is that the United States would not approve. Seems like that may be changing.

>but one of the main arguments against a change in the law is that the United States would not approve. How embarrassing for your country. The US doesn't approve of prostitution either, though?

To my knowledge there is no equivalent of the Controlled Substances Act. Prostitution laws are all state laws.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#77

Post by king_jester »

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…

> 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 taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years.

There is a lot wrong with this bit here. First, I'm not sure where you are finding a figure that cannabis use will double post-legalization. The actual count of users of cannbis isn't fully accurate due to the illegal nature of using it and places that have purused legalization or decriminalization efforts have actually seen a falling trend in cannabis consumption.

Second, the effects of regular pot use ARE NOT like alcoholism or smoking. Cannabis does not have a physical addiction characteristic like alcohol or cigarettes, the method of operation on the body is completely different from alcohol and cigarettes, and research on the health effects of cannabis have been extremely limited due to the schedule I status of cannabis in the US. Granted there may be health issues associated with cannabis usage, but the problem is not well understood and will not be well understood so long as cannabis is schedule I and research on it restricted at the federal level.

Third, legalizing cannabis does have a real dollar cost as it relates to health care, but this isn't a sign to continue to keep cannabis illegal, but rather to fix the fundamental structural problems of health care in the US. Also, it is not clear that there is a causal relationship between some types of cancer and regular cannabis use, and amounts of cannabis consumed by regular users is highly variable. Further, combustion is not the only way to consume cannabis, so the association here with cannabis being a smoking type drug is quite wrong, and in fact many folks with smoke sensitivity do not consume cannabis this way at all.

I agree that like any legal change, there are costs associated with legalizing cannabis, but those costs are so much cheaper than what we have going on today in the US and in the countries where the war on drugs has resulted in tremendous violence and political instability.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#78

Post by isleyaardvark »

nyargh wrote: post #73
ComputerGuru wrote: post #8

I'm not someone who would take advantage of the legalization of marijuana, but I am in favor of legalization because I don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you can or can't do. If drinking is legal, smoking weed should be too. I understand the concept behind a tax on marijuana, but I don't understand a 25% tax on every stage of the process... If you're saying that it's legal to use marijuana respons…

Some historical context may be helpful here: For a very long time Washington state had a highly regulated, tiered program for selling liquor. Very recently, this was privatized. The marijuana legislation that passed, I-502, very closely apes this structure - which kept financial interest in the production, distribution and retail of liquor separate - hence the separate taxation at each "tier". The explanation here co…

This article puts the increase in liquor costs at 10-30% due to fees. 25% is not terribly far from that, and if you've accepted sin taxes there's no reason marijuana should be exempt. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/washington-state-li...)

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#79

Post by cecilpl »

aes256 wrote: post #49
jordanthoms wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you could get meth at Mc'Ds, would you take it? No? Then why do you presume that everyone else would?

Get drunk, go to McDonalds. Bit of peer pressure. "Dude, try the Big Meth!" Congratulations, you are now addicted to meth.

Because McDonalds would be allowed to make a meth burger, the same way they can sell you vokda shots with your happy meal.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#80

Post by ozten »

shrikant wrote: post #30
blackhole wrote: post #2

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

...and done. Referendum Measure No. 74 has passed! http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html

Easy tiger... I'm excited to pass r-74, but only 51% of the votes are in. We might not know until Friday.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/washington

Post reply on HN