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."

31 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. So *that* is how it works... by Jedi+Alec · · 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!

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    1. Re:So *that* is how it works... by Seriousity · · Score: 4, 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!!!

      --
      This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    2. Re:So *that* is how it works... by skids · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:So *that* is how it works... by Rip+Dick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't understand. Are you outraged that this guy spent $50,000 to support Prop 19? Do you realize alcohol and tobacco companies spend millions every year, funding anti-marijuana commercials? Why do you think that is? They don't want competition from another legal intoxicant. Despite the fact that alcohol is proven to cause brain damage (Korsakov's Syndrome etc.) and cigarettes kill thousands of people every year. Tobacco companies tried to do the same thing with clove cigarettes; they actually succeeded in several states. Or consider the hundreds of millions spent annually by the DEA and local law enforcement agencies to fight this "killer weed". Are these tax payer dollar's really being well spent? I can understand that you have an issue with people buying legislation, but this guy's $50,000 splurge is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions spent by corporations every year to lobby for legislation that they stand to benefit from. One example is private prisons. They spend millions lobbying for stricter drug laws. Why? To increase their business. Does it seem right that a private corporation can buy legislation that puts thousands of non-violent offenders behind bars, just so they can increase profits? We have definitely lost control of our country, but it isn't to the potheads.

    4. Re:So *that* is how it works... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    5. Re:So *that* is how it works... by pete6677 · · 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.

    6. Re:So *that* is how it works... by Curtman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand. Are you outraged that this guy spent $50,000 to support Prop 19?

      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.

      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.

    7. Re:So *that* is how it works... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. At first I wondered... by petrus4 · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:At first I wondered... by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making goods or services illegal generally doesn't make it stop happening. It creates a black market that is unregulated and spurs of whole economy of crime. That is what happened with prohibition. That is what happened when abortions were illegal. That's what is happening now that marijuana is illegal. It's also happening with prostitution. Legalize it and regulate it, and you've actually cut crime.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:At first I wondered... by boommboomm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pot generates more than 60% of cartel profits. Legalization takes that money from the cartels and puts it in the hands of governments and legitimate businesses. That in of itself is a boost to national security

    3. Re:At first I wondered... by Ozlanthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah it's just too bad hardly anyone knows that the real reason for making it illegal did'nt have any6thing trying to stop people from smoking it...

      -Oz

    4. Re:At first I wondered... by couchslug · · Score: 4, 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.)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:At first I wondered... by bunratty · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    6. Re:At first I wondered... by canadian_right · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
  3. This is good by Lanteran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:This is good by germansausage · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  4. Good for him by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful
    However, America needs to
    1. LEGALIZE all drugs for use at your own private RESIDENCE. i.e. no private business and no parties. If caught outside of RESIDENCE under influence then some minimum
    2. for 15 years, Allow private business to provide medical mmj (they must grow it and sell it at one location; no buying from elsewhere). In addition, allow farmers to grow mmj, but only sell to gov.\.
    3. for 15 years, the feds provide all recreational drugs, available ONLY at a gov. control stores similar to what Utah has for liquor.
    4. NO exporting OR importing of recreational drugs. Steep penalties (first time offender has free housing for 5 years; second time 20 years; and 3'rd, for life).
    5. provide increased money to police gangs and treat addicts.

    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.
  5. Marijuana/cannabis by blind+biker · · 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.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Marijuana/cannabis by blind+biker · · 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. Lancet, 2007 369, 1047-1053

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  6. Re:Mixed messages by garcia · · 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.

  7. Re:WTF? by zhong-guo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:I don't buy the tax argument by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  9. Kids can't buy pot on the streets...? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

    Boy, are you out of touch.... your chidren can buy pot any time they choose. Today.

    --
    No sig today...
  10. I think people really need to understand this by Sycraft-fu · · 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.

    1. Re:I think people really need to understand this by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    2. Re:I think people really need to understand this by Hatta · · 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.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. It also weakens the overall message by Sycraft-fu · · 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.

  12. So not that acquainted with the street then? by Sycraft-fu · · 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.

  13. My opinion, feel free to disagree! by Socguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  14. Re:WTF? by chrb · · Score: 4, 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.