Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana
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."
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
California already does defy federal law by allowing medical marijuana by prescription. Technically, all the producers and consumers could be busted on federal charges, state legal or no. But as a practical matter, the Feds rarely if ever prosecute "legal" users.
* IAN Your Lawyer. Do not take legal advice from strangers on the Internet.
John Hancock wuz here.
Your answers are here.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Like they can now? Black market dealers don't care how old you are. Legit dealers do.
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?
What's the last time you saw a shady guy in an alley selling tobacco?
Apparently, you don't have illegal aliens living in your nearby forests dumping pesticides, trashing the place, poaching and running around with AK's. Well, it exists here in Northern California and we don't like it.
I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
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 people on learning that they make light/recreational use.
Much as we all like to look down on Americans, you are way off the mark here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita. Other countries drink twice as much and smoke 3 times as much as the USA. If you want to know what de-criminalizing does to pot use look at the Netherlands. About 45% of Americans (where it is illegal) have smoked weed and in the Netherlands (where it is not illegal) only 18% have smoked it.
Boy, are you out of touch.... your chidren can buy pot any time they choose. Today.
No sig today...
There is a safe way to use meth. It is schedule II, i.e., you can get it from a pharmacy with a prescription.
it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke
No, it does not.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
5000 years of human use is not enough research for you?
If the FDA followed its own rules it would be GRAS.
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.
Stellar post, with just one flaw:
it can cause lung cancer, like any inhaled smoke
Maybe not.
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."
The real litigious bastards...
"However other things, like drugs, are not. There is on inherent harm to anyone other than the user."
Wrong. Drugs create wastes in the body and wastes that are expelled from the body that go back into the sewer system, same with drugs. We're pumping a shitload of chemicals into the environment without knowing their long term implications, the idea that the long term risks are known for when these chemicals get into the environment is laughable.
I agree with legalization but I've been reading about just assuming everything you don't know about chemicals or chemistry "must be ok" when you consider the environmental feedback mechanisms.
Environment Canada has officially declared bisphenol A (BPA) toxic. The ubiquitous chemical, found in the lining of nearly all cans used by the food and beverage industry, will have to be phased out in Canada.
BPA is vile stuff. Here's how Scientific American recently described it: "In recent years dozens of scientists around the globe have linked BPA to myriad health effects in rodents: mammary and prostate cancer, genital defects in males, early onset of puberty in females, obesity, and even behavior problems such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-how-harmful-are-bisphenol-a-plastics