Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana 527
Aldenissin writes "Dustin Moskovitz confirmed that he has recently given (an additional) $50,000 in support of Proposition 19, which is seeking to legalize marijuana in California this November. He had previously donated $20,000 to supporters of the act, which would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate or transport cannabis for personal use and would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of the substance. Asked for a comment as to why he's backing the legalization of marijuana, Moskovitz just sent this statement: 'More than any other initiative out there, Prop 19 will stabilize our national security and bolster our state economy. It will alleviate unnecessary overcrowding of non-violent offenders in our state jails, which in turn will help California residents.' An irony here is that about a month ago, Facebook refused to take FireDogLake's 'Just Say Now' pro-cannabis law reform ads."
So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Rip off you friends
2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
3. Buy legislation
3. Woaahhh, dude, munchies!
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Funny)
1. Rip off you friends
2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
3. Buy legislation
3. Woaahhh, dude, munchies!
4. Remember that you were thinking about buying legislation
4. Duuude look at that squirrel... Playing with his nuts, hahahaha... LETS GO HOME AND EAT PEANUT BUTTER STRAIGHT OUT OF THE JAR!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I can barely believe we allow systems like this to exist, much less to be the systems that govern our society. Also, I'm not in favor of promoting marijuana use, but legalising its use is a very different thing, so I don't care too much, and think it might be slightly better than criminalising it.
The one good thing I can see in this is that the guy chose this route, rather than:
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I'd submit an admittedly naive idea:
If everyone voted in 100% of elections, cared enough to research every candidate and initiative, had access to solid information on the issues and candidates, and was educated enough to navigate through FUD when finding that information, then it would not be possible to "buy" a seat or referendum, because any money used creating FUD would just be poured down a hole and any money spent on GOTV would be useless.
In other words, the only reason we have a system where you can buy victory at the polls is because the citizenry is some combination of uncaring/too-busy-to-deal-with-it and there's little money in honest journalism anymore.
We need smarter, more dedicated voters and objectively assembled, well reported journalism.
Sure, there's a cost for signature gathering to qualify something or someone for the ballot, but that is chump change compared to what is dumped into emotional manipulation and outright deception of voters
There should be campaign finance laws, of course, but the law is a blunt instrument. The problem has to be attacked at its root. Not all is lost -- even with our current electorate and media, FUD creation is a very inefficient prospect. The less efficient it gets, the less influence money has over politics. I worry about the demise of high school civics classes, though.
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:4, Insightful)
if this were the case, everyone would spend 100% of their time looking at politics. Even politics junkies can't keep up with the amount of shit that flows every day from lobbying groups and other well funded think tanks, how can a regular person separate the wheat from the chaff?
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to keep up with 100% of it. A mere 20% would be enough to tell you who is full of shit.
Here's a hint: they likely have an R or a D after their name on the ballot.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Especially when groups like "60plus" do not reveal where the estimated 5 billion dollars in funding came from.
They are running tons of ads this year. For all we know, they are being funded by the iraqi's.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And strip voting rights at age 75 or so.
Not giving 17 year olds the right to vote even if the individual is fully capable is justified on the basis that too many 17 year olds are too inept to vote.
Well too many elderly are even more incompetent.
The elderly vote in droves yet nobody falls for FUD like the elderly.
I've know some over 75 individuals with sharp minds who don't fall for FUD but the vast majority, the VAST VAST majority of people seem to get rapidly stupid once in their 70's and become afraid of
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're wrong on several accounts.
Firstly, under 18's aren't allowed to vote not because they're inept or stupid, but because, theoretically, their minds are still developing, they're succeptible to manipulation and they are not responsible for their actions. That's why we don't let young people drink or stand trial. I don't fully agree with this (eg. gangs of 14 year olds who get away with rape and murder, even though they know full well what they're doing), but that's the way it is.
Secondly, the fact that old people become "stupid" or ignorant of the changing society is irrelevent. Particularly in the US but prevalent in all western democracies, all citizens have the right to vote, whether they're black, female, immigrants, disabled or just stupid. Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if stupid people weren't allowed to vote. Or even better, wouldn't it be nice if people could only vote if they agreed with [my opinion], because [I] couldn't possible be wrong. That kind of thinking is the reason democracies let everyone vote. Yeah, the elderly are racist, ignorant, and always falling for scams and FUD. Right, because the super-smart people of slashdot would never fall for FUD like, say, the thousands of baseless anti-Microsoft articles and comments.
Thirdly, your major failure is assuming that only under 18s and over 70s contain vast, vast majorities of stupidity. In my experience, stupidity knows no bounds.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but you couldn't go to war at 17, either. When I was 16 and 17 my dad was still filing me as a dependent and payed taxes I owed (how that is handled varies state-to-state).
Personally, I think it is absurd to have a 21 drinking age, so also a 21 pot smoking age seems silly, too. We should legalize and tax all drugs, ditch the expensive drug war, start educating people about how dangerous some of these substances are, and make zero tolerance DUI laws. Note that I don't do drugs, so I have no vested int
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:4, Interesting)
We need smarter, more dedicated voters and objectively assembled, well reported journalism.
And since that's not going to happen no matter how much money you invest in that goal, what would you like to do instead?
(Seriously, unless you're prepared to suspend freedom of religion in this country, sufficiently smart voters won't happen even if you invest 100% of our state and federal dollars in education).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone voted in 100% of elections, cared enough to research every candidate and initiative, had access to solid information on the issues and candidates, and was educated enough to navigate through FUD when finding that information, then it would not be possible to "buy" a seat or referendum, because any money used creating FUD would just be poured down a hole and any money spent on GOTV would be useless.
That's one approach, but solid information? The only information out there (short of first-hand kn
We KNOW why this doesn't work (Score:3, Interesting)
People are uninformed about issues and candidates, because that is the smart thing to do. The fundamental problem is that the cost in time and effort of me learning is spent by me, while the benefit is shared equally be the whole electorate. So with a million voters I only get one millionth of the benefit of my labor. Few people want to work hard under those conditions.
This is a well researched phenomenon known as "Rational ignorance". Google it to learn more.
Like any vision dependent on a fundamental chang
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, This guy spent $20 000, and then another $50 000, and another Facebook co-founder spent $100 000. For a total of $170 000 [katonda.com].
Marijuana legalization isn't just for the potheads, they already have easy access to pot. It's for the rest of us who are sick and tired of paying billions of dollars to tell people what to do with their own bodies, and are sick of the violence that comes from the black market which prohibition encourages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo! Legalization would instantly defund the Mexican cartels. As it stands today their is a huge war going on just south of our border and we're doing very little about it. Pirates (yes real ones) kill a man jet skiing on a border lake just a couple weeks ago. Then yesterday a US citizen was killed riding a bus in Mexico on his way to see some family members. It's been reported that the Mexican police are saying they only maybe protect busses from sun up to 2pm. WTF? It's getting to the point where
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our whole capitalistic society is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions for the rest of us. So what's the problem with buying legislation?
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Our whole capitalistic society is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions for the rest of us.
Wrong. Capitalism is founded on the notion that people with assets are the ones most qualified to make decisions regarding themselves and their own assets. Not other people or their assets. That's the meaning of "private ownership".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism is the notion that a few individuals should be allowed to accumulate large quantities of limited resources which in effect means they get to dictate to the society that needs those resources. The Golden Rule, as it were.
At first I wondered... (Score:5, Funny)
...how pot legalisation could stabilise national security, as TFA claimed; but then it came to me.
Get all the terrorists stoned, and they'll most likely be far too demotivated and/or tranquilised to carry out terrorist acts. It's actually brilliant. If someone from the Pentagon is reading this, I trust that it will be implemented immediately.
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Oz
I think people really need to understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
When you make something illegal that isn't a real crime, you still create criminals and everything that comes with that. Now what I mean by "not a real crime," is something that doesn't cause harm to others. Nobody in their right mind is going to say murder shouldn't be a crime. By its very nature it is a crime, because it hurts someone. However other things, like drugs, are not. There is on inherent harm to anyone other than the user.
Now this doesn't mean that you should never make anything illegal that doesn't cause direct harm. There can be good reasons. An example might be excessive speeding. In and of itself it causes no harm, however it greatly increases the chances of harm being caused by a mistake, and the magnitude of that harm being rather large. Hence there is a reason to make it illegal. Likewise some drugs are just too dangerous to use safely. Crystal meth is a good example. There isn't a safe way to use meth, so it probably isn't a good idea to allow it to be distributed legally.
However you have to weigh the reasons against the negative impact on society. As with any choice, there is ALWAYS a downside. When you make something illegal the downsides are that you create criminals, and thus have to spend time and resources dealing with that, and you provide a potential source of profit for illegal enterprise. So you have to weigh that against the good you believe it will do.
In the case of marijuana, things are very firmly slanted to the bad side with it being illegal. The drug itself is very mild. There is no near term toxicity and its long term effects are no worse than alcohol or cigarettes (it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke, and it seems to have a negative impact on higher reasoning skills when used heavily for a long term). So it is not very harmful. However it being illegal has put a ton of people in jail, which costs money, and provided a nice profit source for illegal enterprise.
Things like this need to be weighed. Sure, if marijuana was legal it would lead to some problems. People would get stoned and operate a car (that would need to be covered under DUI laws). People would abuse it and spend their life doing little else other than getting stoned. However those problems are far less than the current problems, and are ones much easier to mitigate.
Whenever you talk laws like this, it always needs to be a cost/benefit analysis. You have to work out what is the best for society over all, and not let knee jerk politics get in the way.
Re:I think people really need to understand this (Score:5, Informative)
it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke
No, it does not. [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stellar post, with just one flaw:
it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke
Maybe [webmd.com] not. [washingtonpost.com]
From the pulmonologist who completed the 2,000+ subject study mentioned above:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heroin was marketed legally in America as a cough medicine for 12 years before they realised that it was a pretty bad drug and banned it. Marijuana has been around for over a century now, and has been very widely used indeed since the 60s. It's also been researched pretty heavily in hopes of finding some actual reason to keep it banned. If there was a truly harmful effect to it, chances are that we'd know. And any hypothetical harm is irrelevant anyway, because people should have sovereignty over their own
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5000 years of human use is not enough research for you?
If the FDA followed its own rules it would be GRAS.
Re:I think people really need to understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed.
Cannabis is one of the most studied botanical and pharmacological products in history. Even Nixon's own commission in the 1970s recommended decriminalization.
At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least,
Nobody says it's harmless. Nothing is without risk. What we know is that it's much less harmful than many other products we expose ourselves to on a daily basis. How many people die because of stomach bleeding from Aspirin, or chronic liver damage from Acetaminophen? Thousands every year. How many would die from an OTC cannabis preparation for general aches and pains? None.
But, what you fail to recognize is that what makes something a criminal act is legislative and judicial in nature.
But what makes it right or wrong has nothing to do with the law. When the law is so fundamentally wrong, the real villains are those who perpetuate, profit, and vote for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the issues with marijuana is that it is not any worse than alcohol or cigarettes. It seems hypocritical to allow a more harmful substance, but make a less harmful one illegal. I don't think that anybody is saying it is safe. People are simply saying, "I'm a grown adult. I can be trusted with alcohol and cigarettes, but not marijuana? That's bullshit."
In my own life, I know people who have used marijuana to quit cigarettes. Then they quit smoking pot. I know alcoholics who have said that pot is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
We do need laws to protect citizen's property and well being. If someone steals your television, stalks you, mugs you, or blows up your business, that hurts you. How does someone buying a joint and smoking it in their house hurt you? How does someone paying money for a woman to have sex with them hurt you?
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. But you should have the right to swing your fist if you're not hurting anyone else. Punch yourself in the face for all I care!
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
Prohibition made the Mob massive amounts of money.
It also taught total disrespect for the law because the Volstead Act was unworthy of a free people. The laws against and campaign against marijuana are similarly the product of Puritanical nonsense and worthy of even more contempt since cannabis is vastly less socially toxic than alcohol.
(Booze-related domestic violence is common, while weed-related violence is quite rare even with tens of millions of smokers in the US alone.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you personally know that no Pot is grown in the USA?
Where did you learn this?
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have it backwards. Only the fact that there are illegal drugs makes it possible for criminals to make money from them. Doing drugs may harm yourself, but they don't harm anyone else. Virtually all the harm caused by illegal drugs is a by product of the drugs being illegal.
How many people has the war on drugs stopped from getting drugs? Zero.
Has the war on drugs made it easier or harder for kids to get drugs? Easier as criminals do not generally check IDs or have generally good ethical behavior.
Has the war on drugs made criminals so rich they can destabilize small countries? Yes.
Has the war on drugs caused more harm than the drugs being banned? Yes.
While there is no doubt that some drugs can totally screw you up, making drugs legal has not increased the number of people doing drugs. Some people are risk takers. Some people are just stupid. But making drugs illegal has NOT stopped anyone from getting them. It has made a ton of money for the violent criminals.
Prohibition always fails.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
drug users in general, are people that are comfortable subsidizing the crimes against humanity being committed in Mexico and other regions with drug related violence.
I'm not sure I really understand why it is that this makes the prohibitionists bad and the users good.
Because the the prohibitionists are giving the criminals a monopoly on the product and it is the highest level of hypocrisy to pretend that the users are comfortable with this situation, especially in a thread about efforts to rectify this travesty of justice.
it free up cops / courts / the prison system for r (Score:3, Insightful)
it free up cops / courts / the prison system for real crime and not tieing them up with your dime bag buyer. Also thing of the tax money from pot as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Get all the terrorists stoned, and they'll most likely be far too demotivated and/or tranquilised to carry out terrorist acts.
That's right. They may not carry out terrorist acts, but they'll think about it a lot.
Legalize Pot - Take Power and Money from Criminals (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is good (Score:4, Informative)
* IAN Your Lawyer. Do not take legal advice from strangers on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually official DOJ policy not to pursue legal users. Of course, that comes with the caveat of 'for now'.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Americans are not good at self control. That is why we have problems with Alcohol and Tobacco, but it is too difficult to stop those, Alcohol proven by prohibition. But opening the door to
Marijuana is actually quite stupid. We want to improve citizens productivity and their willingness to work. The debates go back and forth giving hypnotically advantage and disadvantages to prove each side.
The real question is if Marijuana was legal what will be the increase in use... Now how will that effect the producti
Re:This is good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all Americans get drunk every time they drink.
You are right about cigarettes though. Those who smoke, smoke a lot. The percentage of the population that smokes has been going down for the last few decades though.
I don't think that there would be a big increase in marijuana consumption after legalization. It's already available pretty much everywhere. Where I live, there is a huge drug bust every six months or so. They'll bust a truck just completely filled with marijuana. And my thought is always
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prop. 19 creates a new protected class of worker (Article 5, 11304(c)). It explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of marijuana use unless the employer can prove that the usage affects job performance. This is a very high standard of proof, and more than we currently require for alcohol and tobacco.
This blatant overreach is why I voted against Prop. 19, even though
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That section actually says: "Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected"
Nothing about levels of proof required. In fact the wording is "existing right of the employer... shall not be affected" So your statement is categorically wrong.
I'd say the provision is there to stop a marijuana based apartheid appearing, where jobs are advertised or offered on the basis of "no potheads", just as they used to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Others will note that I quote the actual text. You just make up your own interpretations using words, phrases and concepts that are not in the text. For completeness, here's the entire section you refer to: Article 5, 11304(c)
"(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption tha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be clear to other readers that this doesn't mean what you claim it does.
Regardless of what you or I say, I think other readers and (more importantly) other voters will be smart enough to see the truth.
The text says clearly and specifically that only "consumption that actually impairs job performance" may be addressed. This is not my interpretation. This is not something I made up. This is an actual quote.
The text clearly and specifically forbids discrimination. It clearly and specifically uses the word "discriminated". If this does not constitute creation of a protected cl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sean Parker donates $100k (Score:2)
BBC is reporting this and also that Sean Parker has donated $100,000 to support prop 19 [bbc.co.uk].
Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely, do NOT decriminalize the drugs. Legalize them. And do not allow production to every go into gang hands or to be imported/exported. THis is purely about getting control of our borders and ending drug use. Gangs push more drugs than anything else because it is HIGHLY profitable. Stop the profit incentive and you kill the gangs and imported drugs from Mexico and China.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
provide increased money to police gangs
Why would you fund police gangs? Isn't there enough police brutality already?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with most of your points, but why would you make it illegal for use in private businesses premises, which were correctly licenced? Many soft drugs are used in a social recreational way, and it's not a major problem for people to take them responsibly even outside their own residences. I think that's too strong a restriction. Do you limit alcohol consumption to private residences only?
Marijuana/cannabis (Score:5, Informative)
According to an extensive research article published in The Lancet (highest impact factor medical journal), cannabis is both less damaging AND less addictive than either tobacco or alcohol.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, which makes the UK Home Office's initial statement [wordpress.com] that...
"Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."
... in response to yet another scientist proposing cannabis legalization seem all the more pitifully ignorant. (they later took cannabis out of that grouping, but it goes to show how naturally their brains group all 'drugs' together as 'harmful'.) We can only hope that California's legalizing cannabis acts as a catalyst for other enlightened countries around the world to do the same.
Re:Marijuana/cannabis (Score:5, Informative)
[citation needed]
Here you go kind (anonymous) sir:
Nutt, King, Saulsbury, & Blakemore: Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse. [thelancet.com] Lancet, 2007 369, 1047-1053
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Was he getting jealous of Zuckerburg's attention? (Score:2)
I don't buy the tax argument (Score:2, Insightful)
However they don't explain why we should believe that current dealers would be willing to start collecting and submitting taxes to the government. They already have a product that they are selling tax-free, what is the incentive for the dealers to start charging more for the same product?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know... The possibility of no jail time might mean something - if not to the suppliers, maybe to the buyers.
Same as with alcohol after prohibition was lifted, really...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The current dealers will just go out of business.
If legalized it can be easily grown locally in mass commercial negotiations, packaged and distributed like any other product. Without losses due to law enforcement, the need to spend large amounts of money on keeping it hidden and so on, it will be much cheaper.
And who is going to buy from some shady dealer when you can just walk into a shop and get it much easier, cheaper, of a probably better quality, and guaranteed that it's not mixed with anything funny?
W
Re:I don't buy the tax argument (Score:5, Insightful)
From Slashdot, circa 1932:
People claim that legalizing alcohol will bring gazillions of dollars into the government coffers by taxing the product. However they don't explain why we should believe that current bootleggers would be willing to start collecting and submitting taxes to the government. They already have a product that they are selling tax-free, what is the incentive for the dealers to start charging more for the same product?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldnt be sold by dealers if it were legal (I assume this is part of the point). It would be sold just like any other product of this nature such as alcohol and tobacco. How many black market booze dealers do you know? The point is that it would no longer be sold by underground groups (or rather it would no longer be proffitable) therefor cutting off the cash flow to the bad guys connected with the harder drugs such as crack, ice and heroin. One of the problems with the way things are currently is that
ABSOLUTELY NONE, UNLESS (Score:2)
Second, make the price for legal stuff LOW at first.
If buyers can get it cheaper and safer from the gov, than buying it from drug dealers, AND they know that they will go to prison IF they buy from a deal, then dealers will quit.
Taxes are a drop in the bucket (Score:4, Insightful)
While the extra tax revenue doesn't hurt, that isn't where most of the money is gained on this.
Consider the ridiculously huge number of people in prison for a harmless crime, and the fact that many of them get longer sentences than rapists. Now figure out what it costs to incarcerate them at taxpayer expense. (Hint: we have 106% of Canada's crime per capita, but 616% of their prison population per capita.*) Now calculate the lost labor from having them rot in prison instead of doing something productive. Now add in the cost of paying all of those cops who do pretty much nothing but go after potheads. Now add in the huge amount of Mexican border security needed vs. drug gangs with the power of small armies, which get all their money from... yep, pot. This goes way, way, into the billions. Not throwing all that money away would make a huge difference. Any tax revenue gained from selling it legally is just a bonus.
* - Here's my sources on those 2 statistics I quoted:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
As for the dealers selling it tax free? The dealers are out of the picture. They can't keep up with the prices a large-scale commercial operation is going to be able to sell it at. When's the last time you purchased alcohol from a dealer on the street, vs. one of the 97 gazillion liquor stores? If you're most people, the answer is "never." Now sure, some set up their own mini-distillery (or get some from a neighbor who does), and they obviously aren't paying tax on it, but that's such a ridiculously small minority that it's statistically insignificant - and even most of the ones who do that don't use it as their sole supply due to the sheer impracticality of producing large amounts of beer with something you made in your basement.
Last but not least, in additional to the many billions we wouldn't be throwing away, we'd be some lives by weakening the gangs up here, and a LOT of lives in Mexico, where the drug lords pretty much own the country thanks to the virtually limitless income they're making from US pot users.
I don't smoke pot... it simply doesn't appeal to me. However, it's actually *less* harmful than alcohol, in that it's quite possible to OD on alcohol (although you generally have to be pretty stupid to manage that), while it's physically impossible to OD on pot. As for the short-term impairment of being under the influence of either, I don't really see one being significantly worse than the other. The only issue I'd have is people driving while high, and we already have DUI laws to cover that. Just add an "or pot" everywhere those laws mention alcohol.
Where are the big Ag companies in all this? (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize you are trying to somehow demonize pot further by tying it to those companies but seriously, who cares? Under the bill as it stands you'll still be able to grow your own if you want.
BTW, I dare you to thoroughly check out the mutual funds in your retirement investments. I'm betting you already support those two "evil" companies & don't even realize it.
Status: WASTED! (Score:2)
He just wants to be able to set this status and not get arrested.
My opinion, feel free to disagree! (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Half the population feels or has felt the law is contemptible and contemptible laws breed contempt for the law.
3. Pot should be regulated much the same as alcohol and cigarettes, in your home or licensed establishment. Obviously, one should not drive or engage in other potentially harmful activities when stoned. Common sense must prevail.
4. If governments wish, the level of THC in the product could be regulated in order to prevent ever more potent strains from being engineered.
5. Don't expect a huge tax windfall from legalizing pot, the stuff is dirt cheap to produce because it grows like a weed. Pun intended. Once the risk is removed, absent government mandated pricing competition will drive prices through the floor just like the rest of agriculture.
6. Stop putting people in jail for smoking pot. It makes no sense when places like California have such huge budgetary issues. A ballot initiative should be put to the people, de-criminalize or tax increase proportional to the cost of keeping all those locked up for the offense in jail. Halting the lock ups is really the only area you will see savings from legalization.
7. If Pot is legalized, then discourage smoking as a delivery method... Smoking is still harmful to your health.
8. At some point, it will happen so why not be ahead of the curve? The benefit is generally the greatest for the early adopter of these sorts of things.
9. No system is perfect. The best we can do is always try to make things better!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All hell didn't break lose in Holland, and that's not changed anything elsewhere. Well, people witter out about 'drug tourism' but of course that doesn't happen if people can buy it anywhere. And again, we HAVE drug tourism in the UK, because people go to (mainland) Europe to stock up on cheaper alcohol/tobacco.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least for the US, any workable system in Europe is immediately disregarded here by a stubborn minority as "socialist" (the new evil word) and foreign. This group believes anything the US does, regardless of results, is superior to the rest of the world. They will ignore or misrepresent established health care systems that provide better results for half the price because of those beliefs. They sure as hell won't follow a successful reduced harm law if it comes from outside the US.
But maybe such laws get
Re: (Score:2)
a billionaire gives 70.000 $ to an association
And as a side note, that is all this is: a guy giving money to an association. This is not Facebook supporting weed. There is no irony in that "Facebook refused to take FireDogLake's 'Just Say Now' pro-cannabis law reform ads."
Re: (Score:2)
"OMG - I already gave them $20,000? I completely forgot! Pass the pretzels."
Re:Mixed messages (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you think kids feel now.
Just like I did when I was a kid. I didn't give a shit about drugs until high school. Once I got there and observed the effects of marijuana had on people I realized they were lying to me all along. If anything the "War on Drugs" and "Just Say No" campaigns made me distrust government far more than anything else.
So perhaps if marijuana consumption was permitted kids would be less distrustful of government when they came around to being of voting age.
It also weakens the overall message (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they've changed it since when I was in school (which was admittedly a long time ago) then the message is that all drugs are EVIL. They'll all fuck you up, make you a degenerate, etc. No drugs period. They are all painted with a broad brush.
Ok well the problem is that isn't true, and kids are going to find that out. They'll meet someone who smokes weed, and does fine. Maybe a popular kid they idolize, maybe an adult who has a job, family, and all that shit. Whatever the case they'll realize that what they were told was bullshit. They may try it themselves and further realize that it was bullshit. Pot won't destroy them, all this was nonsense.
Now the real problem is that they may then ignore some of the other messages. See meth really WILL destroy you. It is heavily addictive, you often get addicted with a single usage, and we are talking a physical addiction. It also just wrecks your body. Your teeth fall out, you become gaunt, it'll kill you in not too many years. All this is on top of the heaping helping of paranoia and delusions it gives you. Nasty, nasty, shit that nobody should ever mess with.
However if the message about meth and pot is the same, and someone finds out the pot message was BS, well do they believe the meth one? Much less likely.
We need to be straight with kids. Tell them how it really is with drugs. That doesn't mean saying "Sure use them," I mean leading a clean life is always best and that counts the legal ones. You are better off not to smoke tobacco, or marijuana or anything. However there's a big difference between those and things like meth and heroin.
It is similar to the bullshit and ineffectiveness of abstinence only education. Nobody is saying tell kids to go have sex, they are saying tell them "Look, the only sure fire way to not get pregnant or get a disease is to not have sex. Really, the best idea is to wait, it is much, much safer. You do NOT want a kid right now whil you are still a kid yourself. However, if you are going to have sex, here's how to be safe about it."
Same shit for drugs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, tobacco is far more dangerous than heroin would be if it were legal. Before prohibition, addiction to heroin wasn't much more than a nuisance, while tobacco was merrily killing people just like it does today. The big dangers of heroin are all caused by prohibition - unreliable dos
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't speak for the parent, but my experience was not dissimilar -- realizing that one of the smartest and most productive people I knew was a recreational pot smoker certainly changed my viewpoint on the drug. It's not something I engage in myself, but I no longer jump to immediate conclusions about
Re:Mixed messages (Score:4, Interesting)
realizing that one of the smartest and most productive people I knew was a recreational pot smoker certainly changed my viewpoint on the drug.
I have several similar stories: productive people casually smoking pot for recreational purposes and still being responsible people. I've got a few very dissimilar stories as well and it wasn't very pretty to see. I've seen a guy lose himself in drug use looking for the next high, waking up at 8 in the morning and lighting up a joint, and over the years working himself up to various other drugs that are not as harmless. A guy I used to work with lit up on the way to work every single day, so he wasn't a very dependable person. He would atypically also get fits of rage whenever he didn't get what he wanted. I think the coworker I mention here had some psychological problems, perhaps amplified by the drug use, perhaps not... I'm not an expert on the subject.
I don't buy that whole "gateway drug" thing. I know too many people who've smoked pot and never once tried something else. Like most things, I think it depends on the user on how they use the drug and how well balanced they are. From what I have observed alcohol has more devastating effects on people than pot, but that argument seems to open up a can of worms best left closed.
I live in a country next to The Netherlands and the "drug problem" has evolved to the point where the effects of usage are no longer the main problem, but the fact that foreigners are buying drugs and causing the locals grief with all the traffic has become the main issue on the agenda. This has led to various public figures from both governments clashing, and if I'm not mistaken there's a strong push in the Netherlands for a system where you have to prove your identity when purchasing pot. I would argue that if this is the most worrisome issue with people using pot the whole thing has pretty much become a farce, but leave it to politicians to make matters more complicated than they need be.
And to conclude, something mildly entertaining: the effect of drugs on spiders [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not have any correlation to being smarter. But it has a huge correlation to being more creative.
Creative? No, I don't think so. Random is the word you're looking for. I don't use mind-altering substances but I have observed several people close to me do so. What you're calling creative - which is a popular and historically common - really isn't. Recreational drugs and alcohol serve to suppress coherent cognitive awareness. Users have diminished reasoning skills and what's left is random, less-coherent thought patterns.
For every "brilliant" writing/painting/work-of-art that supposedly couldn't ha
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think kids feel now. On one hand you have the government, parents and everyone saying that marijuana is not good for you..
They will be utterly confused. An issue that isn't black-or-white? Horrible, how will they manage?!?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
it was nice defeating you, I'm sorry you couldn't be a more worthy opponent.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
And when the drug cartels, finding the pot business no longer lucrative, move on over to cocaine etc.. what then?
As long as there is something that's outlawed, there will be outlaws performing it. If you legalize it, those (and others) will move on over to the next outlawed thing. Legalizing something to take away the raison d'etra for these cartels won't work. Legalizing booze didn't make the mob vanish. They moved on over to coke and gambling. It took concerted effort from the FBI to stamp them out.
I support legalizing pot - I think it's less harmful than the two current legal drugs - tobacco and alcohol. But I don't for a second believe that we'll solve the mexico drug war by legalizing it. it'll only get worse because they'll be pushing cocaine. The drug cartels have to be taken on just like the FBI took on the mob.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
And when the drug cartels, finding the pot business no longer lucrative, move on over to cocaine etc.. what then?
Do you think the drug cartels aren't already dealing cocaine? Removing cannabis from their inventory will only serve to reduce the amount of money flowing into their coffers. That will in turn reduce the amount of power that they can wield over the government, law enforcement, and the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What are you, high?
Oh, now I see what you mean by "this." Irony, got it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your [youtube.com] answers [youtube.com] are [youtube.com] here [www.leap.cc].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just guessing, but this may refer to Mexico border security. The drug trade's pretty violent right now, and the theory is that legalizing marijuana will undercut the cartels, forcing them to calm down and act like legitimate businesspeople instead of terrorists.
I have my doubts about this theory (it's not like the 21st Amendment magically got rid of organized crime in the U.S.), but it's not WTF-worthy.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Key word, of course, is "act". If it becomes bad for business to act like terrorists, they likely will cease doing so, even if they're the same sociopathic thugs they've always been. They're not ideologically or religiously motivated, after all; they're just in it for money.
We had drugs just about ready and waiting for organized crime to move into. Get rid of drug laws (by which I mean legalizing use and sale for all the major categories of recreational drugs, including opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines, and keeping any taxes on same reasonable) and you'll push organized crime back to their roots as protection rackets and smugglers. Which won't eliminate them but should reduce their reach.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
have illegal aliens living in your nearby forests dumping pesticides
What? They, like, come over illegally, buy pesticides, and go dump them in the forest?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you frequently catch them with alcohol and tobacco?
If you do frequently catch them with alcohol and tobacco, do you really think it is entirely the responsibility of the state to deal with that?
WRONG; LEGALIZE IT. (Score:2)
Kids can't buy pot on the streets...? (Score:5, Informative)
Boy, are you out of touch.... your chidren can buy pot any time they choose. Today.
So not that acquainted with the street then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a hint: Weed is way easier for kids to buy than alcohol. Alcohol is only sold in stores and restaurants. The bootleggers have basically vanished. Even with the taxes, you just can't compete with Safeway. Well, turns out the stores aren't willing to sell to kids. They get plenty of sales legally to adults and do not at all need the heat they get from underage sales. So they check ID. Makes it hard for a kid to get it, without an adult accomplice.
Pot though? Drug dealers don't check ID. They sell to anyone who's got the cash. They are already breaking the law, they don't give a shit if it is your kid. What's more, they'll even market to kids. They need to try and find every customer they can, since they have to keep things underground. Means they'll target anyone who looks likely.
You legalize pot, kids will have a much harder time getting their hands on it. Won't be impossible, of course, they can get an adult to buy it for them as they do with alcohol. However it'll be harder than it is now.
Oh and PS: "Think of the children," arguments are bullshit. It is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than use logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I got:
Error 420: Wait... What?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5000 years of human use, 100+ years of study in the west. What more do you want?
There is all the evidence we need, the stuff is far safer than tobacco or alcohol.