Sean Parker Contributes $9 Million As States Push To Legalize Marijuana (gazettenet.com)

Sean Parker has now donated nearly $9 million in his effort to legalize marijuana in California. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Billboard: Whether it's founding Napster, guiding Facebook or investing in Spotify, Sean Parker has developed a reputation for pushing change forward, and now he's at the forefront of California's marijuana legalization movement... [A] competing proposal from the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform was folded into Parker's, making his the leading ballot measure, by default, for 2016 in a state with the largest medical marijuana market in the country.
The U.S currently has a hodgepodge of legislation, with marijuana entirely legal only in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, as well as in the District of Columbia, and in individual cities in Michigan and Maine. But with five more states now voting on legalization, pro-marijuana campaign ads are being broadcast in Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California and Arizona. ("You decide who wins -- criminals and cartels, or Arizona schools?") And meanwhile, Slashdot reader schwit1 has identified one voter who's definitely opposing police efforts to hunt down marijuana growers: All that remains of the solitary marijuana plant an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing behind her South Amherst home is a stump and a ragged hole in the ground... Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the [medicinal] plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21...

Comments

GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[CajunArson]

Oh wait.. nevermind, we like his position. Money in politics is good again.

Re:GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS!! OMG!!

[kilfarsnar]

Oh wait.. nevermind, we like his position. Money in politics is good again.

Getting money out of politics might (might) enable us to have laws based on science and reasoning, rather than propaganda and hysteria. The alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceutical industries all contribute and lobby hard to protect their businesses. At least people like Mr. Parker provide a countervailing force. Wanting to get money out of politics is not the same as wanting to do it unilaterally.

This is the problem

[houghi]

I am all for legalizing it.The issue I have is that people buy the laws. Because that way you end up in a pissing contest where only the rich decide what becomes law.

The Gateway: Myth or Fact?

[rmdingler]

Marijuana should be decriminalized to separate it from being grouped with cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, etc. ...at least in the minds of our youth.

When we were growing up, it was all dope to our parents and probably misleadingly associated with the same risk assessment. It seems clear, even to the opponents of legalization, that this is not the case.

Good for him

[damn_registrars]

He's putting his money where his mouth is.

However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.

(there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

Re:Good for him

[The-Ixian]

You know... I could grow tomatoes in my back yard... but I don't... I buy them at retail.

Re:Good for him

[kilfarsnar]

He's putting his money where his mouth is. However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard. (there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)

It's happening right now:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/05/26/marijuana-sales-tax-revenue-huge-boon-for-colorado-cities/

People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.

Re:Good for him

[swb]

Have you ever tried "wild" marijuana? It's truly only useful as a fiber source.

A friend has a wild marijuana plant in his back yard that comes up every year -- he does nothing to cultivate it, it just reseeds itself every year. One year I tried what looked like the best part of it and it was awful. Not even remotely stoned. It can be relatively easy to grow moderately good marijuana, but it requires active cultivation -- you can't dump the seeds in the ground and come back 3 months later and expect anything useful for smoking.

And in terms of tax revenue, you have to remember the best government spending benefit of marijuana is from not enforcing marijuana prohibition. Billions of dollars are spent specifically on marijuana enforcement, especially in places with widespread outdoor cultivation.

Every dollar *not* spent on marijuana enforcement has a benefit greater than the equivalent tax increase resulting in an addition of a dollar of revenue. For one, there's zero economic penalty from repurposing existing tax revenue -- a tax increase has an additional drag on the economy greater than the additional revenue raised. It's like suddenly not having to pay your utilities anymore -- you didn't get a raise or incur the costs of taking a more demanding job, but you suddenly have more money to spend without working any harder to do it.

Look at Denver -- $29 million in tax revenue from marijuana -- positive revenue that they would have never collected in addition to the significant amount of tax revenue they would already collect that they no longer need to spend on marijuana prohibition enforcement.

I hope someone is working hard on actually quantifying the cost savings from not enforcing marijuana prohibition, although I suspect law enforcement probably doesn't want it known. If it was a *really* large number, they look bad for opposing legalization and essentially wasting money on a hopeless cause. Even a semi-large number could invite people to ask questions about law enforcement effectiveness. If your boss removed 5 hours of work from your responsibilities per week but your net productivity on other tasks didn't improve, it could prove embarrassing.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

How is this related to slashdot? There's not even a cursory connection to tech/science.

Sean Parker, a tech entrepreneur, is investing in bringing our drug laws closer to sanity. I'd say that qualifies as a cursory connection.

Escalation?

[alexo]

“No,” the trooper said. “Are you escalating? Because if you need a warrant we’ll go get one.”

So now asking that police follow the law is "escalating"?

Schedule status is complete BS

[burtosis]

The schedule I status needs to go. Certain chemicals in marijuana have shown themselves to be the best treatment for specific kinds of seizures, far better than anything currently available, to say nothing of the myriad of other uses. The evidence it has some medical value is insurmountable and being schedule I prevents much of the research that could be helping people while ensuring that grandma gets the full swat experience.

Getting a realistic categorization based on facts and not propaganda will help to pave the way for legalizing it on the federal level.

Re:Not legalization.

[kilfarsnar]

Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself. From everything I've seen what they mean when they say legalize is to decriminalize it's use and build/protect an industry. I'm OK with the first part the second part is really kinda disgusting.

Phase two after decriminalization never seems to be legalization, what it ends up being is a bunch of people swooping in to corner the grow/supply market and once they are in place they tend to lobby for laws that make it that much harder for competition to move in. Even if that perceived competition is the average citizen growing their own marijuana for personal use.

Hey, wake up.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_(2016)

From that link: "An individual would be permitted to grow up to six plants within a private home, as long as the area is locked and not visible from a public place"

Colorado's laws are similar; one is allowed to grow a limited number of plants. When they say legalize, they mean legalize. Consider me your alarm clock.

Re:What the actual fuck

[Pseudonymous Powers]

"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

And for "potheads" read "about half of Americans".

Not that I'm pro-pothead, necessarily, because I've known my share, and so I can safely say that I like people way better when they aren't high. But continuing to outlaw an activity that 150 million people support seems kind of dumb, not to mention a failure of democracy. See: Prohibition.

Re:Well...

[kilfarsnar]

I think that marijuana is going to be the sequel to tobacco. Smoking different stuff isn't healthier. Around the 2030s we will probably see lung cancer and throat cancer go up again along with everything else as the second anti-smoking campaign begins. Or, you know, we could just try to stop it now.

Do some research. Pot smoking is not linked to lung cancer or COPD.

https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/marijuana-found-to-shrink-aggressive-brain-cancer

In fact, marijuana has been shown to have an anti-tumor effect. From the linked article:

In addition to the recent findings that cannabinoids may be an effective treatment for glioma, researchers have discovered over the years that marijuana may also have powerful anti-tumor effects, which could stop cancer from ever forming in the first place. While the research isn't new, it paved the way for further evaluations of the connection between cannabis and cancer. In one 1996 study, researchers found that lab mice given doses of THC over a two-year period experienced a decrease in the rate of certain cancers and benign tumors in areas such as the pancreas, uterus, testes and mammary tissue.

More recent research has shed some light on how cannabis produces these effects. According to a 2014 study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, THC acts on cannabinoid cell receptors to inhibit the interactions between them, thus decreasing the risk that cancer will form or interrupting cancer that is already growing. Further research has shown that THC is capable of decreasing the rate of lung cancer cell growth by 50 percent as well as preventing pre-existing cancer from metastasizing throughout the body. Studies have also shown that cannabis is capable of killing brain cancer cells. The anti-cancer benefits of cannabis are extensive and clearly noted, and, when used correctly, can help providers offer powerful cancer treatment without the dangerous and uncomfortable side-effects present in other treatment options."

Marijuana really is medicine. It just so happens that it's also nice to enjoy recreationally.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"

For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".

Ah look, another stranger on the Internet who thinks he knows me.

Full disclosure: I smoke pot. Fuller disclosure: I do so with minimal risk and without the attention of police. You know why? I'm white and upper middle class. I am a senior systems admin at a global company, make a professional salary, drive a nice car and live in a nice apartment. I have good, quality relationships with my friends and family. I exercise and watch what I eat.

As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". But this is the Internet and I could be a dog for all you know. So it's really neither here nor there. No, the real reason I want marijuana legalized is so we can stop wasting lives and resources by locking people up for smoking it. By the logic of our current policy, society would be better served by putting me in prison rather than leaving me free to help run a large computer network for a productive company. But as I said, I am discreet and do not fear arrest, so this isn't about me. My concern is for those whose skin color or socioeconomic status prevent them from enjoying the freedom I do. We ruin their lives, waste our resources and have very little to show for it. It's stupid, whether or not you think pot is okay to smoke pot. Our current policy has nothing to do with taking care of people or helping them stop using pot, and everything to do with punishing them and making them unemployable. Like I said, stupid. Way more stupid than smoking pot could ever be.

Re:What the actual fuck

[kilfarsnar]

"As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". "

So you say. More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.

Yes, as I said, I could be making the whole thing up. I might not even smoke pot! But I have nothing to prove to you, so you can think what you like of me.

"We ruin their lives,"

They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.

Not too strong in the logic department, eh? It's not the weed smoking that's ruining their lives; it's the punishments of prohibition that do that. The question is not whether or not they will go to jail of caught smoking weed. The question is whether or not that is proper. I maintain that it is not proper. We ruin their lives, over and above the effects of pot smoking, by putting them in prison and a felony on their record. That doesn't help anyone, not even you. It is quite clear that the war on drugs has failed at its stated goal of eliminating drug use. It hasn't even reduced it by any measurable degree. It is a waste of money, lives, time and resources. It should be ended.

You will go right ahead thinking that pot smokers are all worthless burnouts. I cannot disabuse you of that notion. But the failure of prohibition is a fact, not an opinion. It's time to stop locking people up for non-violent, victimless "crimes".