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."
1. Rip off you friends
2. Make massive piles of cash (that would be profit!)
3. Buy legislation
3. Woaahhh, dude, munchies!
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
...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.
We need to drop this 'war on drugs' mentality that's cost us so many billions and given us one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. Marijuana is less addictive and damaging than both alcohol and tobacco, and actually has plenty of acceptable medical uses. Its also rather interesting that a state is testing its powers against the federal government by downright defying a federal law, I wonder how that's going to turn out.
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
So what? I am glad someone is doing something. If this passes in California the prohibitionists won't really have a leg to stand on when all hell doesn't break loose and crime rates remain stable or even decline as some predict.
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.
Go to google news. Search for: mexico drug war
it was nice defeating you, I'm sorry you couldn't be a more worthy opponent.
Your answers are here.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
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.
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.
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?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
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?
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?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
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.
Prohibition - ever heard of it? It was the great idea of making something illegal that could be made in your bathtub. -Pot, making something illegal that grows in your backyard, your basement, your National Forest - easy to grow, easy to sell. Millions and billions in Court costs, incarceration costs, police costs and power to criminals - all for something you can't stop and is no worse than booze. So simple, so hard for people to understand.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Boy, are you out of touch.... your chidren can buy pot any time they choose. Today.
No sig today...
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.
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.
There is a war going on for your mind.
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.
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.
If your children are as stupid as Carl Sagan, I think you're darn lucky.
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
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
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.
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.
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 getting a foothold in California will help change that. Or better yet, the marshmallow majority can get off their butt and vote in sufficient numbers to make themselves heard.
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.
I think you have the terms a bit mixed up. "Decriminalize" means it is still illegal for anyone to possess the substance, but that the penalties for smaller amounts are fines rather than jail time. "Legalize" includes a status like alcohol or tobacco, with sales restricted to those above a certain age. Proposition 19 would set that age at 21. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010)#Authorization_of_criminal_and_civil_penalties).
I think most supporters of Prop 19 and THC legalization in general would agree that THC should not be available for sale to children. Implying otherwise is a strawman argument that makes opposition to the Proposition seem more reasonable by re-framing the terms involved.
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 have happened without some drug, there's a bunch of pointless crap produced by a stoner. Douglas Adams slaved ever every word in the Hitchhiker's Guide series. He didn't get wasted. Coherent people can produce brilliantly creative works. Incoherent people sometimes do. Hence random.
That all being said, do what you will. I don't care if someone elects to get out of their mind. Not my business. But the idea that drugs lead to on-average "better" creativity is false.
"Oh no... he found the
A more fitting title to this summary would be "Billionaire Donates (at most) 1/14,285th of his money to support Prop 19"
I'm glad actually that he donated, but just be nice if we were told what exactly this $50,000 was going to accomplish.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. - Einstein
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.
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.
1. If alcohol is legal pot should be too. The former has far more potential for harm than the latter.
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!
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.
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?
You can't take the sky from me...
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 change in human nature, your system empirically does not, and can not work. What we need is a system where people can affect their own lives. In those areas people are usually quite well informed and make as good decisions as they're capable of.