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

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#91

Post by MartinCron »

rdl wrote: post #33
MartinCron wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That, and Vanouver BC didn't want to be a destination for drug tourism. Vancouver, WA will now have that honor.

Felons can't go into Canada (and, there's customs search too), so BC as drug tourist/reup spot doesn't make as much sense as Vancouver WA drug tourist/reup spot. (although I can't imagine anyone buying retail ounces and then selling them, legal supply chains tend to cover up illicit ones running in parallel, or allow diversion, so I could see the underground taking advantage of this.)

When I was 19 year old non-felon, I took a trip from my home in Seattle to Vancouver BC just to take advantage of the difference in the legal drinking age.

If booze tourism exists, even to a small degree, we'll have pot tourism, even to a small degree.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#92

Post by xiaoma »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #23
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…

the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places. I'm sure the government will want their cut soon enough, then it'll be 25% state tax + whatever the federal government decides to charge. As it is, no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legi…

>"states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner"*

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the ninth amendment say pretty much the opposite of this?

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#93

Post by smsm42 »

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…

Government doesn't need to be bribed, voters do. It is pretty much "if you potheads want us to not put you to jail, there should be something in it for us too". Ideally, people should not be paying bribes to be able to do something that harms nobody and is their own private business. However, in the messed up world of American politics, it is what it takes - nobody cares about your freedom, but if you sweeten the deal with some tax dollars, it may be worth considering.

Government is running protection rackets in many areas, but in this particular one it is the voters who take the decision. I never heard an argument about legalize which based on freedom and lack of harm and medicinal uses, etc. alone and was successful. Add tax income to that, and your poll numbers are much better.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#94

Post by Dove »

koudelka wrote: post #19
[deleted] wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I tend to agree that all substances should be legal, I'm just stumped when it comes to implementation. I'm sure most people wouldn't be too happy if a heroin or crack shop opened up in their neighborhood though. Should we allow the passing of ordinances preventing the operation of such shops? Should the selling be handled by designated shops at all?

Should we allow the passing of ordinances preventing the operation of such shops?

Of course.

Lots of people don't want porn shops in their neighborhoods, either. Or casinos. So there are laws about where they can be located, what the storefront can look like, how they can advertise. Some cities ban them entirely, and you get a few of them set up right outside city limits.

I'd stay it works pretty well. People who want it know where to go, and people who don't want to see it don't have to.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#95

Post by beatgammit »

blackhole wrote: post #2

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

Meh, not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision, but I do appreciate that this decision is being made at the state level instead of the national level. I too am proud to be a Washington native in this election, but mostly because of the public charter school system.

Being a fiscal conservative, the national election, however, did not go as I had hoped. Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wake up to.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#96

Post by Firehed »

pstuart wrote: post #74
lukeschlather wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I doubt that. How many people try cigarettes for the first time the day they turn 18 or alcohol at 21?

Anecdotally at least, people first try these substances when they want to, not when it's legal for them to do so. I can't imagine this being significantly different for marijuana - it's already so easy to obtain as an illegal substance.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#97

Post by sethrin »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #21
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…

The government is a protection racket. Laws against weed violate the sovereignty of hte individual. It's absurd that the primary argument is tax revenue. Really shows how whacked politics and American's conception of government is.

What is "individual sovereignty"?

Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit.

The world of sovereign individuals is wonderful in objectivist fantasies. In reality, it results in anarchy, for a brief moment before one strongman clubs another over the head, and two other people decide to team up against their neighbors.

Even casting aside the concept of civilization as we know it, you cannot reproduce in a vacuum, nor live in one. You are beholden to others for your existence, and you repay this debt by helping to ensure the continuation of the species. A morality that prizes collective rights over the rights of the individual is fundamental to our biology. Sovereignty, therefore is not a function of individuals.

Lest I be decried as an opposite but equal ideologue, I do see a necessary role for the individualists. The forces of society and government are powerful, and must be resisted: what is bad for one individual is just as likely to be bad for the whole of society. Neither side should ever presume an absolute right: in this battle there is no victory.

You also err in your definition of government. You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force. The 'competitive market' for government is commonly called warfare. Government is a necessary evil as long as men are capable of violence.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#98

Post by drivebyacct2 »

saraid216 wrote: post #90
drivebyacct2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested to know why you're being downvoted.

I just downvoted him because of pseudo-philosophical drivel with no substance of thought or contribution of information. Not really worth engaging him, so I just downvote.

So, "I disagree but can't be bothered to actually justify myself". Cool, that's the kind of community participation you should be proud of.

How is that drivel? He's the ONLY one here saying that it's a farce that we should have to dress this up as "Save the kids from evil pot" and "Tax evil pot to make money" when it ought to be an issue of personal liberty.

Fortunately, you can't just downvote me because you disagree or can't be bothered to explain yourself. Maybe you'll choose to offer some actual thought yourself.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#99

Post by saraid216 »

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #98
saraid216 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just downvoted him because of pseudo-philosophical drivel with no substance of thought or contribution of information. Not really worth engaging him, so I just downvote.

So, "I disagree but can't be bothered to actually justify myself". Cool, that's the kind of community participation you should be proud of. How is that drivel? He's the ONLY one here saying that it's a farce that we should have to dress this up as "Save the kids from evil pot" and "Tax evil pot to make money" when it ought to be an issue of personal liberty. Fortunately, you can't just downvote me because you disagre…

Being the only person to say something does not actually make what you have to say substantial.

I downvoted him because he didn't say anything, not because I disagree with him. He didn't say anything worth disagreeing with.

Re: Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

#100

Post by smsm42 »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #39
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…

> I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that. I would like to point out that a 25% tax on legally produced marijuana is very low . A 500% tax would still be low. Considering the amounts consumed, growing marijuana is really easy and cheap. Without the legislation against it, when grown in volume by professionals it should have a cost per kg nearing that of hydroponic cabbage, or some 1000 times less than…

That doesn't mean the tax is low. Cabbage is grown like cabbage, and it doesn't have 25% tax on it.

And what is 500% tax? You pay 4x your revenue for the right to grow marijuana? It's not a tax then, it's prohibitive fine.

Post reply on HN