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

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 918 posts

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#871

Post by danielscrubs »

danielscrubs wrote: post #594
ncr100 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THEREFORE they will be able to move CASH money out of their stores TO BANKS, resulting in fewer "smash and grab" incidents ... aka, "Hyundai meet storefront of weed shop." Looking forward to this, silly to see so many Kia "boys" being used for gross violence crimes when regulation changes could lessen it. > https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-pot-shop-cr... for example

The poverty and gangster culture is going to stay the same so this seems like a weird kind of social take, I mean wont grifters just find another way to hurt common folk? I mean... I can leave a 2000 USD Macbook for a toilet break in Starbucks over here without any issues and have done so regularly.

Not sure why I get downvoted from criminologists you have: Deterrence Theory, Social Learning Theory, Labeling Theory and Cultural Influence.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#872

Post by int_19h »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #723
int_19h wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it, though? It's a massive new market that big corps are itching to get into if only they could do so legally. And the fact that some top politicians on both sides of the aisle are already investing in weed (on state level, where it's legal) has already made some news. The only reason why it's not legalized yet is because 1) many politicians are old enough to be brainwashed to believe in "reefer madness"…

Experience here in Canada has shown it's not nearly the massive market that people thought it was. Tons of stores with excess stock and people losing their shirts, production curtailed. Big speculative wave when legalization was announced, and then it collapsed. Take a look at e.g. Canopy Growth's stock price over 5 years and you can see how the hype wave went.

I mean, we kinda already know the size of the market in US in those states that legalized, and it's lucrative enough.

But even if it's not massive, it's still extra profits that could be made.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#873

Post by kelseyfrog »

eurleif wrote: post #865
kelseyfrog wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judging people is wrong. This isn't a controversial statement.

"Wrong" is a judgment. Why are you judging people for judging people?

If you're arguing that judging people is ok, I think you could do a better job than tu quoque.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#874

Post by cgriswald »

olyjohn wrote: post #846
cgriswald wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that how a traditional ATM transaction works? You use the ATM and the money goes to the ATM owner (plus a fee). The only difference here is you get weed instead of cash.

Except at my dispensary, you can only do transactions in $10 increments. So if you buy $9.95 worth of stuff, you get a nickel back.

Yes, but any ATM tells the bank that you took out $10. The bank never sees the cash and the cash doesn’t belong to the bank. Substituting goods may or may not be allowed but the bank doesn’t know about it and customers are unlikely to complain to the bank.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#875

Post by pests »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #536
TylerE wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ones in DC typically seem to be either on 2nd floors or in basements. Security outside at the entrance to the steps.

The ones I've seen in the Detroit area seem to mostly be in areas zoned industrial, which typically means single story, stand alone buildings with few "eyes on the street". Going to guess Michigan has restrictive zoning requirements for marijuana businesses that keep it out of the public eye.

> Going to guess Michigan has restrictive zoning requirements for marijuana businesses that keep it out of the public eye.

It's up to each city/county if they allow any stores at all and their own regulations / licensing.

A recent change a lot of shops seem to be going through is removing the "lobby waiting area" (so 2-3 shop "in private") and just adding more shelves and display cases while building up a huge line. Never liked the farce before (and probably a holdover from when they were medical only) so its a nice change.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#876

Post by sanderjd »

rascul wrote: post #845
sanderjd wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but that's not always the case. When is that not the case? I believe it would be a violation of current electoral law for electors to fail to cast votes as apportioned by the results of their state's general election. In my view, being detached from the outcome of the general election in a state isn't the problem with the electoral college currently (though maybe it was in the past). Rather, the problem is that the…

See the 2016 election with a number of faithless electors for the most recent example. Some states require electors to vote how the people vote, but not all. Also, Maine and Nebraska don't always give all the electoral votes to the same candidate. I'm not sure the process in those states, though. I don't really have much of an opinion on how the election could be better, but there are some interesting ideas.

I wrote my comments specifically with Maine and Nebraska in mind. They don't do exactly what I suggested with a proportional apportionment, but it's closer to that, and better for it. If every state did what they do, the electoral college would be a non-issue.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#877

Post by rayiner »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #864
rayiner wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Society doesn’t owe you acceptance for your personal choices. For the vast majority of people, smoking marijuana is an anti-social choice that makes them a less productive member of society. Why should anyone have something other than a negative opinion of such a choice?

Judging people is wrong. This isn't a controversial statement.

No it's not. Judging people is extremely important in order to enforce social conformity and norms. It's how we as social animals maintain civilization.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#878

Post by [deleted] »

flawsofar wrote: post #868
rayiner wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Society doesn’t owe you acceptance for your personal choices. For the vast majority of people, smoking marijuana is an anti-social choice that makes them a less productive member of society. Why should anyone have something other than a negative opinion of such a choice?

What if being productive to society is actually harmful?

[deleted]

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#879

Post by rayiner »

flawsofar wrote: post #868
rayiner wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Society doesn’t owe you acceptance for your personal choices. For the vast majority of people, smoking marijuana is an anti-social choice that makes them a less productive member of society. Why should anyone have something other than a negative opinion of such a choice?

What if being productive to society is actually harmful?

It's not. It's why you're not living in a hut, or worse.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#880

Post by celdon25 »

djur wrote: post #681
celdon25 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really victimless when you have cases of psychosis and other health issues that negatively affect people around them, and put strain on taxpayers and the health system. This is Should be strictly prescription-only, and not with the rubber stamp model that "medical" marijuana clinics use. But that isn't politically correct so it's better to ignore the science and just drug the masses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih…

The evidence that exists suggests that heavy cannabis usage _at an early age_ is associated with the development of psychotic disorders. No state that has legalized cannabis has permitted minors to purchase it. No evidence exists that cannabis usage later in life causes psychosis. There is also a lack of population evidence that increased cannabis usage among the public results in increased rates of diagnosis of psyc…

You're 100% incorrect. It took me 15 seconds to find this page from Yale which suggests up to age 35 as a possibility, and recommends not using before the age of 25.

https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38909735

> The government authorizing a product for sale doesn't force you to consume it.

And you missed the point entirely. The government doesn't need to force when it can seduce, and it doesn't need to lie (except by omission) when it has liberal surrogates spreading misinformation like what you just did. It's convenient for them when majority opinion always works out that way. Where do you think those opinions come from? The same concept works in reverse when you have relatively safe drugs banned solely because of sensationalist headlines resulting from one or two edge cases.

Post reply on HN