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 responsibly and you're limiting how much you can buy, I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that.
Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? Are we selling out purely for the economic benefits? Or is neutral and the government are running what boils down to a protection racket?
It's part of making an overwhelming argument, overcoming as many objections as possible. Common component of rhetorical arguments, especially by economically minded people.
For example, fre market economists are usually pro economic immigration: Let resources (labour) go to their highest value use. If a graphic designer can make more in an Oslo design office than they can in Bucharest, there is a potential economic surplus. Opponents might make some objections: there will be increased unemployment among local graphic designers, the immigrants will mean increased costs in local services.
The economist-proponent looks at the surplus. Going from a €7k salary to €50k. Adjusted for costs, he calculates a €25k surplus. All the opponents objections can be overcome with €5k at most: new job training centres, schools and hospitals. He throws in another €5k to make the argument stick. He can have his immigration and unemployment will go down, hospitals & schools will be better funded, design firms will have better/cheaper designers and the immigrant will have a better income - even after they charge him €10k a year.
Makes sense on paper. It's a good way of simplifying an argument by creating an on paper ceteris parabus. When it actually makes it into policy ir law, it can be arbitrary and unfair at the best of time (eg immigrants pay higher taxes). It's also a potential faucet for funding that the hungry will flock to.
The weed smoker has a lot to gain. Lower prices. Better quality. Reduced stigma. Easier access. Not getting put locked a cage. Well worth the $500 per year.
Good post. The economic term for these sort of arguments is Pareto Efficiency [1]. I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that you ought to make all the changes that make literally everyone better off before worrying about changes that make some people better off and some people less so.
> 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 it's present street price.
The problem with taxing something you don't like is the government quickly becomes dependent on the revenue and ends up having a perverse incentive to promote it.
My guess is the medical prescription nature of marijuana in California probably inflates its price 10x.
We just deregulated alcohol last year -- meaning the WA liquor control board stores shut down and we can purchase from grocery stores, with a $2.85 tax per 750ml, on top of the 10% sales tax.
The justification is that this will funnel more money into the state's general fund.
And the nickname "weed" is apparently appropriate -- growers tell me it's a hearty crop.
500% tax is isn't 4x revenue. Either the consumer pays the tax, so its 4x the product cost, or the vendor pays it, and prices the tax into the sale price, so the tax us 83% of revenue.
Take an example: water costs 2cents/gallon. a 500% tax would make water 10cents a gallon. That would be enough to promote agressive conservation, but not prohibitively expensive.
Soda costs <$1/quart at grocery, less at wholesale. But if you buy it at a restaurant, you pay >$1/pint, for 500% markup. Yet it's not prohibitve, because the baseline is sooooo cheap.
Municipal water costs in the US average around .0015 cents a gallon. Flushing your toilets with .0075 cents per gallon would not be prohibitive, growing crops with .0075 cents per gallon water would be. However, far more water goes to growing crops than flushing toilets.
PS: There are actually huge swings in water costs in different areas, which does impact water use significantly.
growing crops with .0075 cents per gallon water would be
Only because everybody else is growing with 0.0015 cents a gallon. If everybody was growing with 0.0075 cents per gallon, food would be more expensive, but we wouldn't suddenly be unable to feed ourselves.
All things being equal if water averaged .0075 cents per gallon it's because there was less of it. So, we would still use some of it to grow crops, but we would not be growing as much food.
PS: We are used to abundance, but there really are hard limits out there.
I don't know how much you pay for water in your house, but I know how much I pay. 5x increase would be very substantive expense for me, coming very close to "prohibitively expensive".
The point is that once there is no legislation to stop it, someone on minimum wage would be able to buy as much weed as he's able to use without making a noticeable dent on his incomes.
A lot of the world, including the country I live in, believes that products that are harmful to the society should be taxed to discourage their use. Harmful products typically include things like alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks and candy. If marijuana would be legalized, it would certainly fall in that category. (It's important to note that a lot of the people supporting legalization don't think that marijuana is good, it's just that legalization would be immensely less bad than the present situation.)
As such, as I see it, the question of how much tax should marijuana have on it depends mostly on how much it can be taxed while still killing the business of the black market sellers.
> 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 there's widespread avoidance, or at least the double-taxation aspect will be eliminated, but it might just stay: depending on what the price of cannabis turns out to be in the marketplace, the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places.
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 one step back is still directionally correct.
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.
> 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.
> Cannabis does not have a physical addiction characteristic
The evidence for a link between Cannabis and increased risk of psychosis is increasing [1]. A patient with psychosis rarely recovers and is extremely costly to society over his lifetime (as well as a personal tragedy, of course). I'm in favour of legalisation but it is something to take into account.
I've seen the study regarding cannabis use and psychosis and it is interesting, but I just want to clarify that I meant there is no physical dependency mechanism for cannabis compared to other classes of drugs such as opioids.
"""Conclusions
Despite all of the uncertainties surrounding the cannabis-psychosis link... The evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk of psychosis when it is used frequently. Whether cannabis can trigger a primary psychotic disorder that would not have otherwise occurred is unclear.
However, in most individuals who use cannabis, psychosis does not develop, which suggests that the increased risk must be related to other vulnerability factors (genetics, frequency, or age of onset of cannabis misuse)."""
I don't really want to deal with the schizophrenia article because frankly, the way it's used in the debate, it's hard to have a fair and honest conversation about it other than: "The science is weak because no one CAN know because it's fucking illegal to study." (er, this sounds like a dismissal of the article, please don't take it as such, it's not meant to be)
That having been said, I think that it is different than what the GP was referring to which is a chemical addictive property (like nicotine) rather than a long/short term side effect (smoking side effects, whether it be tar in your lungs or increased risk of schizophrenia)
[1] Sorry for the language, but the biggest joke of this entire debate is that Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug.
"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."
That's just wrong.
Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people through liver failure and various other adverse affects. Pot does not.
Alcohol is pretty far up the addiction scale. Pot is not (though it does have some addiction potential).
Alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you, which is worse than pretty much anything else I know. Pot withdrawal may disturb your sleep for a week, if you're a heavy user.
Tobacco kills an enormous amount of folks. Pot smoke is not nearly as toxic (AFAICT) and you don't have to smoke it anyway.
There is a lot of data on this, a quick search on your favourite engine will find it for you, it's not like pot was just discovered last week.
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.
Anecdotally, alcohol and cigarettes are substantially more widely exposed to minors than marijauna is. That will likely change when everyone's older brother can pick up a bag at the store.
Exactly. And I would further argue that the possibility is very high that it will actually decrease alcohol consumption, which as we all know is immeasurably harmful.
Marijuana is the one that is immeasurably harmful. The biggest benefit of legalization is that it will allow us to make good measurements of the effects.
"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."
It helps to actually read the quality data you're supposedly referring to.
But you see, we have much less evidence that legalization = saving money in the war on drugs. Increasing revenues by taxing something new is pretty damn clear cut.
It will be easier to convincingly make the argument that cutting back on the war on drugs is positive, after a few torchbearers lead the way. You don't have to convince me, I'm just speaking of the population at large.
Note that state law has no effect on the War on Drugs, which is a Federal effort. The feds have still been harassing marijuana growers/users that are in no violation of state or local law.
If the taxes are too high, the black market and its associated crime returns. This happened with high cigarette taxes a few years back, and the taxes were stepped back down.
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 legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner. It'll be in the supreme court very soon, I'll bet.
"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 legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner"
They aren't mentioning this because of the "fact" that the federal government will not change its stance until the states change their stance. It's not immutable.
>"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?
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.
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.
They don't come from the society - otherwise there's nothing wrong with slavery, if only society condones it. If you want to claim the society is wrong and slavery is bad, you need to find some reason why. If the reason of "I don't like it" does not sound convincing to you, you'd have to find some principles that lie beyond the customs of the society. It doesn't have to be God's will, but it has to be something. Society can only follow these principles or violate them, and according to that be a good society or bad society. But it can not be the source of it - unless you are willing to concede slavery was perfectly fine, while society accepted it.
I am in principle willing to concede that, but I don't think it necessary. I am not willing to put the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective. Individuals do not reproduce -- we are not bacteria. There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned.
The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies. They also can only be defined within the context of a society: fairness and equality for one individual (or a sociopath) is whatever the hell he likes. You don't need the argument for individual rights in order to decry slavery, though it helps. Where societies are not fair or equal, they are not good. When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good. There are other measures of morality, but none so fundamental.
Collective can not have rights different from the rights of people, since collective is nothing but people - it just word saying "many people". So you're saying "I'm not willing to put rights of individual over the rights of other individuals". OK, that sounds fine, but nobody is asking you to.
>> There is a point where promoting individual rights is not useful where the species is concerned.
Useful to whom? Species is just another word saying "a lot of people". I'm sure to some of these people suppressing right of some other people would be very beneficial. So what?
>>> The concepts of "fairness" and "equality", are both fundamental to good societies.
People understand very different things when they say "fairness" and "equality". Some people think it's "fair" that somebody can not work a day in his life and still get money, shelter, services, education and many other goods paid by somebody else who works 14 hours a day. Some think it's not. Some think it's not "fair" that some people have millions and live in luxury and some have trouble with paying for their basic needs - and others think it's completely "fair".
Same with equality - equality of what? The only way people can be truly equal if they are identical clones living identical lives in identical circumstances. This can not happen. So equality needs to be qualified - what we want to be equal?
The society can do nothing with these definition - these things mean different things for different people, and always will. Politicians use this to lure people into voting for them, but in their speeches they just mean "vote for me please".
>>> When individuals are not beneficial to the society they are in, they are not good.
Sorry, this is baloney. Individual has absolutely no obligation to be "beneficial" to other people. Treating people only as resources or sources of benefits for oneself is immoral and such treatment - if you're talking about sociopaths - is usually a sure sign of some pathology in emotional/moral sphere. It is not a fundamental measure of moral, it is a fundamental measure of immorality. This is what leads to societies where millions of people get murdered, because they were declared "not useful for society".
You're ignoring what I'm saying about biology. Imagine a scenario where an action benefits one person to the exclusion of all others: one man survives as King of the Universe, and the rest of humanity shuffles off this mortal coil more or less willingly.
Can this situation be considered "good"?
If not, why not?
My argument is that ultimate good and evil are predicated on the survival of the species. If you can rate individual rights as being the ultimate good, then you are saying that the survival of the species is less good.
If you do not think that individual rights are the ultimate good, then we are just arguing about a matter of degree, not primacy. Also, from there any topic that I can relate to being necessary to the collective survival is an automatic win, but don't let that worry you overly.
I'm not sure what scenario you are talking about, but this does not matter as this scenario has nothing to do with reality. There's no such question on the agenda as choice between one man surviving or everybody dying.
>>> My argument is that ultimate good and evil are predicated on the survival of the species.
I couldn't care less about the species. Why should I? Who is this "species" I'm supposed to care and why its survival has any value to me? I care about real people, but caring about abstract "species" does not have any value for me.
This approach not only weird but outright immoral - if followed logically, I should advocate exterminating or at least sterilizing genetically inferior individuals - such as ones possessing obviously debilitating genetic diseases, and advocate killing off people that do not contribute anything to the species and the survival of such.
Of course no normal human being would accept that. Well, some societies tried that - like Nazis exterminating individuals that were considered inferior and detrimental to the Aryan species - but you know how it ended and how it played out before it did. I don't think you want that.
>>> If you do not think that individual rights are the ultimate good,
I think individual rights are the ONLY good. There are no any other rights but individual rights, everything else is just a metaphor ultimately reduced to individual rights or a fraud designed to trick certain people into giving up their rights to some other people in exchange for plausibly sounding lies (or, failing that, coerce them into the same). Only individuals are sentient, only individuals have feelings and reason, only individuals can communicate and interact on sentient level, only individuals can have rights. I could somehow accept the concept of animals having rights, maybe, since many of them are capable of purposeful behavior and it can be argued they possess some level of emotion and sentience, even if unlike that of a human. However, "collective rights" are either just a way of speaking (when you say "a football team went to Boston", it means members of the team went there, not some distinct "team" entity went there and the members stayed in New York) or invented and fraudulent concept.
I don't believe that eugenics automatically follow from socialism --I think you should be more explicit here in step 2.
Reproductive rights a problematic in your argument. Which is why we tend to solve the issue by considering couples as a single legal individual. Mostly.
The other flaw would be 'crimes against humanity' -- in a world where there are only individual rights, if I kill you and all of your family, that would eliminate anyone with a claim against me, no? If societies have no rights, what right do we have to punish anyone?
Further would be scenarios falling into the category of 'tragedies of the commons,' where no one person can be held responsible for e.g. pollution. If "common ownership" is illusory, then there is very little incentive not to abuse whatever real property you can get your hands on.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing the concepts of "individualist/objectivist" and "sociopath". On the other hand, I can be grateful that we do live in a world that is fundamentally socialist. Good luck with the philosophy.
"Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit."
Individual sovereignty was granted to you by God. You were born with it. It's a self-evident fact. Any denial of such requires you to employ your own will over your body. Any denial of individual sovereignty proves it. Your comment is the result of the ownership of your own body.
"You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force."
Government does not have a natural monopoly on force because they do not sell it. To have a monopoly you need a market. Government is not a group you hire to defend your rights, instead government forces you to be their subject and pay for their protection. Forcing someone to pay for your protection is a protection racket.
I've never read Ayn Rand and I am not an Objectivist. Espousing objectivism is not a prerequisite for defending the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
God isn't real. Neither is individual sovereignty. Just ask Napoleon, or Hitler, or any man ever executed. Individual sovereignty is not the same thing as free will.
You don't require currency to be a market, but you do, in fact, pay taxes. You also pay with your productivity and everything that you do which does not benefit solely yourself. Do read up on the definitions of "market", "natural monopoly," and "sovereignty."
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying there will be no costs in enforcing safe usage of pot? What are the societal costs of (to use alcohol analogy) driving while stoned? What about rehab?
The public, through the government, effectively pays for this, and taxing the activity can alleviate or mitigate those costs.
Compared to enormous costs of the War On Drugs, the cost change would be clearly negative. It is much cheaper to ensure pot is not sold to minors, not distributed in schools, etc. - just as is done with alcohol/tobacco now - that to have dedicated police force, court system and prison system prosecuting marijuana users.
Societal costs of DUI would not change much - people that are careless enough to DUI would DUI anyway, and legal pot does not add much to it - whoever needs pot, knows where to get it even illegally, and obviously if he doesn't care about the law while DUI, he wouldn't also care about the law before, while consuming. So while a minor rise in DUI is possible since people that smoked in home because they were afraid to be arrested may now smoke outside and then drive, I think it won't be very significant. Most people know how to be responsible.
Rehab costs would rise since more people which have dependency problem would turn to rehab now that they aren't branded criminals anymore, but I think it is a good thing, and the cost will be completely covered by the reduction of costs in policing, courts and prisons. Especially that marijuana is a relatively lightly-addictive drug, so rehab would not be as costly as for heavier substances.
In Australia as of 2007 only 25% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the manufacturer, 13% goes to the retailer and the rest goes to state and federal taxes.
Maybe the politicians have set it up to fail so they can come back and claim legalization doesn't work? If you raise the taxes high enough, you'll keep the black market alive because the price difference offsets the danger for a large enough customer base. Black market cigarettes are a "thing" in Europe, for example.
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?
Not all substances need to be legalized. There's no reason for the government to promote the use of drugs, however it should stay out of our personal choices as much as possible.
Borrowing from Portugal's drug policy, decriminalize possession of personal amounts of drugs and focus on rehabilitation.
I can see the point of only decriminalizing those few drugs, like meth, that are actually worse than alcohol. But really, shouldn't the government be encouraging people to be using marijuana rather than alcohol just from a public health perspective?
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.
Really? How do you know, 'it hasn't stopped them.' How do you count the number of people who never got addicted to meth because it wasn't on sale at 7-11, or was never made the secret ingredient in McDonald's new meth burger. Do you know that without rules, there really are no rules, and the examples I just gave are the tip of a scary iceberg. Do you know what worse is? You have no idea.
It's funny how humans tend to fully forget about things that happened only 100 years prior.
Back in the late 1800's and early 1900's, some 50% of the American population was addicted to opiates in one form or another, usually without even realizing it (due to there being no failed drug laws yet, and no laws regarding the listing of ingredients on common "elixirs"). And yet, we didn't live in some apocalyptic wasteland with drug addled zombies roaming the land, we had a very modern, progressive, civilized society. Just look up images of America in the 1890's to see what America would look like without asinine drug laws, and with a large part of the population physically dependent upon legal narcotics.
Well, there were certainly parts of post Civil War America that could be properly described as a post-apocalypic wasteland. But this was the clearly the fault of state and federal politicians, not the traveling medicine shows and pharmacies.
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 dopaminergic neurons. Post-withdrawal syndrome can persist beyond the withdrawal period for months, and sometimes up to a year...
Got some junkie friends? I know a couple of them, burned and miserable lives mostly. On the other hand, all my drinking friends are quite normal, no addictions, no suffering from alcohol.
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.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. There are plenty of people for whom alcohol has destroyed their lives (or is in the process of doing so). You happen to know a set of people who aren't afflicted in this manner and a different set of meth users. I'm sure there are people out there who can use meth just as responsibly as others use alcohol.
Wait, are your stats on consumption adjusted for population? The numbers I saw was that the percentage of people using alcohol doubled after the end of prohibition, and alcohol abuse went up around 15%.
McDonalds is a bit of extreme scenario. Sell it in specialized shop, where everything is explained, where you have to sign paper that you do understand the consequences of trying this drug.
Because how would you stop Mc'D from putting it in your burger for you?
Some people would stop eating there, but most just wouldn't care. Convenience beats ethics for most of the time; otherwise none of us would be buying bottled water, or Adidas shoes, or Apple computers, or any product from any company that was found to abuse people in some way or another.
How do you stop them from putting caffeine in your soda?
Easy, because we have laws about food and drugs. If someone puts caffeine in a drink it must be labeled. If someone puts salt in food then it must be labeled. Do you imagine that government and society would spontaneously decide to take methamphetamine less seriously than caffeine if it were fully legalized?
This iceberg exists only in your head. The fact is that there's no McDonalds alcohol burger, and no McDonalds tobacco burger, and both alcohol and tobacco are legal. Other highly addictive substances - barbiturates, diazepam, etc. - are legal too, even though require prescriptions, but are highly available. No scary McDonalds burgers though. All this data - both on addictiveness and on availability - is widely and easily available. Try to think for yourself instead of parroting propaganda. It's harder, but it's more fun.
Look at my rock. It is a magic rock. It keeps tigers away. I have never been attacked by a tiger while holding this rock. Who knows how many tiger attacks it has defeated.
EDIT:: Also I don't give a shit if 7-11 sells meth. I'll just shop somewhere that doesn't.
As someone who thinks the 'war on drugs' is really stupid, I think it's dishonest to compare direct efforts to stop something (no matter how misguided those efforts may be) to a "magic rock". Obviously drug prohibition has stopped someone from acquiring or selling drugs at some point in time who otherwise would have. Of course, that doesn't make it a financially worthwhile or desirable goal.
Proud Seattleite here too -- both gay marriage and marijuana legalization; steps in the right direction in my opinion. Will be interesting to see how much authority the Feds take on 502 (marijuana). I know the WA state lawyers have been buffing up for a big Supreme Court fight; fascinating case incoming.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. We always fall for Eyman initiatives, sadly. Eyman, for those who aren't from here, is the guy who keeps getting initiatives on the ballot that make our government as ineffective as California's.
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.
Because there are other reasons to be against same-sex marriage laws. I am an advocate of a general marriage law, allowing two consenting adults to marry whatever their gender, race, age, and so on. However, I don't think it is a good idea to have two different laws for the same thing, marriage, as it makes the law-system more messy, difficult to maintain, opening up all possibilities of treatment differences, and so on. I prefer to have the law system as simple and clear as possible and amending laws or adding laws to cover all kinds of exceptions is detrimental to that.
How are they "two different laws"? The amended law IS the law.
"I don't think it is a good idea to have two different laws for the same thing, marriage, as it makes the law-system more messy, difficult to maintain, opening up all possibilities of treatment differences, and so on. I prefer to have the law system as simple and clear as possible and amending laws or adding laws to cover all kinds of exceptions is detrimental to that."
The "law system" is meant to be adaptable. Simplicity is not to be prized over human rights. This seems to be an internalized moral argument masquerading as some sort of strange appeal.
Which, again, is your personal opinion, but it is unnecessary to suggest that it is in the interest of society to avoid all "legal complications". The law can adapt to any complexities of reality.
>Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wake up to
This has always confused me. Are you day trading or holding positions where short term moves massively impact you? Or do you believe the entire market will actually explode? As someone with investments I honestly pay little attention to short term moves as I am investing on far longer time horizons. Or maybe I am just missing how the market going up or down after random event X impacts my life in any meaningful way or portends really anything. I do see how both sides like to claim the market is validating whatever they are currently trying to "sell", I think these people massively over-simplify "the market" and its moves, for obvious reasons.
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.
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.
It'd be nice if we could leave politics to other sites, please. Pretty please? There are a zillion sub-reddits where you can discuss this stuff as much as you want, but just one Hacker News, which does not need to go political.
(I'm pretty happy with the results too, but that's neither here nor there)
It's interesting to consider how much of the legislative and voting process actually impacts the act.
A lot of voters probably view marijuana as positive/neutral, though how many were actually swayed by the 25% tax?
In the end there's a larger systemic problem, where you compromise and are either hurting consumers of a neutral/positive product or benefiting as a governmental system by feeding off of a negative product. Either way, regardless of your views it's a forward step for society, though with somewhat perverse implications.
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 responsibly and you're limiting how much you can buy, I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that.
Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? Are we selling out purely for the economic benefits? Or is neutral and the government are running what boils down to a protection racket?