The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it. As I said before, neither side is fully honest with their claims.
Do you have a citation for that? I think various people have made various predictions. Colorado ended up collecting a lot more tax than they expected to:
This is all still very new, but I don't think things are really that far off from expectations. If you can provide a link to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
If you look at who is against it - it's mostly law enforcement and people who want to keep the broken system going.
I doubt it will pass, but if it does, it should be interesting to see what the DEA does when people can legally grow X amount of plants but still not allowed at the federal level.
You can see what they are doing now. Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska all allow private cultivation. The Feds are basically quietly doing nothing.
"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".
Those numbers are not even in the least bit close to what the pot propagandists claimed would be instantly and eternally realized in tax revenue. Sure, it is greater than zero but it is not the huge numbers they promised.
Okay, so some of them were wrong. Cities and towns are still getting more tax revenue, so what's the problem?
People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.
That isn't even close to the same thing. Marijuana needs almost nothing to grow beyond what dandelions or any other plant need. I've seen plenty of places where it has grown by accident. You can't make beer by accident, you have to set out to make it. There are other spirits that can be made by accident but beer isn't one of them.
People are manifestly buying instead of growing in Colorado (and other states). Your position is contradicted by current reality. Sure, some people will grow it for themselves. But that's not preventing the governments from reaping more tax revenue. Like I said, we don't have to speculate; it's happening right now.
This is exactly how the new "people for the people" democracy works: Wealthy people or corporations use money in bribes to influence legislature bypassing unbiased education and disclosures of facts for voters.
This is a ballot measure in California. It's direct democracy. What are you on about?
You also forget the major organised crime drug dealers and their money laundering banks, laundering billions and taking a percentage. In reality they are the people skulking in the background keeping the drugs they profit from illegal because once legal they lose that profit. Now that is serious money and seriously debauched parties (they require evidence to take down any politician who accepts their money only to betray them) and serious pay to speak scams. Crime at the highest levels with collusion between those banks, organised crime gangs, terrorist organisations, certain three letter US government agencies and specific corrupted politicians to keep it all going and no one prosecuted.
Oh, I know quite a bit about that. Gary Webb told us something about that as I recall. And HSBC's troubles were more recent. But yes, it's a good point to make. Things are not all that they seem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. My primary objection is that I find many people to be adequately stupid without chemically exacerbating the situation.
Well, you're currently paying to incarcerate these people. So get on board.
It is only a matter of scale. Marijuana messes with your head and so of course it's a drug. We should lock up anyone in possession, no questions, no pardons.
How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that all drug users should be locked up? My OTC cold medicine messes with my head, and supposedly it's only a matter of scale.
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.
Software is not languages. Software uses languages -- you can program software using 1s and 0s. Which language was used there? No language -- it's a sequence of numbers. Software languages exist to simplify the translation of processing steps into 1s and 0s, which is the actual software. Technology often consists of processing steps, which are patentable, and so should software.
It seems it depends on one's definition of language. Language is used to convey information. It's just a sequence of letters, or sounds. So it could also be a sequence of numbers as well. Indeed, you could replace the alphabet with numbers 1 - 26 and it would still work, as long as people learned the new system.
And any plastics that do break down form "microplastics" that have now found their way into more than a quarter [independent.co.uk] of fish sold in Indonesia and China.
Good place for it. Maybe they will stop putting toxic chemicals and heavy metals into products when they realize it's on their dinner plate.
Now, how would they realize it? Who would tell them? We already know that business interests trump public interests in the eyes of the government (just about any government). I saw an article further up talking about laws against defamation and slander in Indonesia. Might telling the public about the quality of a businesses products fall under that? I imagine it could.
No, people will continue to eat shit because it's cheaper.
We don't need social security. There was a time before the government had its paws in charity. Back then people actually donated money without the threat of violence to charity. They saved up pennies and put them into accounts and investments for retirement. Now we live in a nanny state. We can't afford to send our kids to good schools. We're dependant on government schools to educate our kids and make them dependant on the state too!
No. I want to opt out of this ridicules system altogether. We don't need it. If you think like me and rather take a small insignificant risk or two for the sake of living free come join me in New Hampshire. I moved to New Hampshire because of the Free State Project. Which is a migration movement of people who want to get rid of government and the use of violence against peaceful people. We don't think the government has a right to control. To tell us what to do. We have a right to do as we please so long as it doesn't injure other people. We shouldn't be tagged (social security, licenses plates, etc) or require permission to live (work, drive, etc). We shouldn't be forced to pay taxes under the threat of violence (what they'll do if you don't comply). If you don't agree with the artificial construct called copy"right" they'll lock you up and take away your liberty. Well, that's just plane wrong and undemocratic. The Freenet project says it best: "You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law" and you need freedom of speech for a true democracy. Freenet also says: "The core problem with copyright is that enforcement of it requires monitoring of communications, and you cannot be guaranteed free speech if someone is monitoring everything you say."
Oh, look, another Libertarian fantasist. You know what happened before Social Security? Many elderly people ended up in abject poverty. Saving for retirement is great, I do it too. But I make a professional salary that puts me in the top 8% of national income. Poor people don't have the extra cash. If people gave to charity in enough volume to address the issue, we wouldn't need Social Security to begin with.
The idea that free people can live and get along without government might work on a commune or some other simple society. But for a complex society like the modern United States it is ridiculously inadequate. You think we can have a space agency, a modern military, and an interstate highway system with everyone just donating what they want to? Do you think you can plan ahead with everyone paying as much or as little tax as they want, or none at all? Do you think the national economy works like a fucking lemonade stand? Fire departments used to be private and paid for by people who wanted fire protection. They don't do that anymore. Maybe you should find out why.
Go read up on the "agentic state". And try not to be like that.
Do people in an agentic state know they are in an agentic state? What are the implications to free will and personal autonomy of being in such a state?
Slashdot Mirror
No, but the subject of this discussion is the support of the legalization of marijuana. I'm not sure how liking or disliking the smell enters into it
The problem is that a standard refrain from the propaganda pushers was that we would instantaneously - and for all eternity - see such an overwhelming influx of tax revenue that we would immediately be able to balance the budget, bring about world peace, colonize Mars, and cure all human diseases. We have clearly fallen far short of that, and will never reach it. As I said before, neither side is fully honest with their claims.
Do you have a citation for that? I think various people have made various predictions. Colorado ended up collecting a lot more tax than they expected to:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/marijuana-legalization-and-taxes-lessons-other-states-colorado-and-washington
This is all still very new, but I don't think things are really that far off from expectations. If you can provide a link to the contrary, I'd be interested to see it.
If you look at who is against it - it's mostly law enforcement and people who want to keep the broken system going.
I doubt it will pass, but if it does, it should be interesting to see what the DEA does when people can legally grow X amount of plants but still not allowed at the federal level.
You can see what they are doing now. Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska all allow private cultivation. The Feds are basically quietly doing nothing.
"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".
That crap fucking stinks. Like we hadn't enough stink from the tobacco smokers already.
Yeah, you're right. We should keep putting people in prison so you don't have to smell something unpleasant.
Those numbers are not even in the least bit close to what the pot propagandists claimed would be instantly and eternally realized in tax revenue. Sure, it is greater than zero but it is not the huge numbers they promised.
Okay, so some of them were wrong. Cities and towns are still getting more tax revenue, so what's the problem?
People buy beer even though they can brew it at home.
That isn't even close to the same thing. Marijuana needs almost nothing to grow beyond what dandelions or any other plant need. I've seen plenty of places where it has grown by accident. You can't make beer by accident, you have to set out to make it. There are other spirits that can be made by accident but beer isn't one of them.
People are manifestly buying instead of growing in Colorado (and other states). Your position is contradicted by current reality. Sure, some people will grow it for themselves. But that's not preventing the governments from reaping more tax revenue. Like I said, we don't have to speculate; it's happening right now.
You do realize that if marijuana was legal the pharmaceutical and tobacco industries would be all over it.
Yeah, probably. What are you gonna do? Money in politics and the workings of American capitalism are much bigger issues than legalizing pot.
This is exactly how the new "people for the people" democracy works: Wealthy people or corporations use money in bribes to influence legislature bypassing unbiased education and disclosures of facts for voters.
This is a ballot measure in California. It's direct democracy. What are you on about?
You also forget the major organised crime drug dealers and their money laundering banks, laundering billions and taking a percentage. In reality they are the people skulking in the background keeping the drugs they profit from illegal because once legal they lose that profit. Now that is serious money and seriously debauched parties (they require evidence to take down any politician who accepts their money only to betray them) and serious pay to speak scams. Crime at the highest levels with collusion between those banks, organised crime gangs, terrorist organisations, certain three letter US government agencies and specific corrupted politicians to keep it all going and no one prosecuted.
Oh, I know quite a bit about that. Gary Webb told us something about that as I recall. And HSBC's troubles were more recent. But yes, it's a good point to make. Things are not all that they seem.
"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.
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:
Marijuana really is medicine. It just so happens that it's also nice to enjoy recreationally.
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.
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.
I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. My primary objection is that I find many people to be adequately stupid without chemically exacerbating the situation.
Well, you're currently paying to incarcerate these people. So get on board.
It is only a matter of scale. Marijuana messes with your head and so of course it's a drug. We should lock up anyone in possession, no questions, no pardons.
How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that all drug users should be locked up? My OTC cold medicine messes with my head, and supposedly it's only a matter of scale.
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.
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.
to legislate against stupid. Marijuana is for burnouts.
Yeah, so the obvious thing to do would be to put them in prison and ruin their lives.
We wouldn't want them wasting their lives, now would we?
Holding a job and sucking at it is not a credible qualification for a promotion.
That didn't stop George W. from leapfrogging Jeb into the presidency.
Actually, it was the Supreme Court that didn't stop George W. Bush from leapfrogging Jeb into the Presidency. ;-)
Software is not languages. Software uses languages -- you can program software using 1s and 0s. Which language was used there? No language -- it's a sequence of numbers. Software languages exist to simplify the translation of processing steps into 1s and 0s, which is the actual software. Technology often consists of processing steps, which are patentable, and so should software.
It seems it depends on one's definition of language. Language is used to convey information. It's just a sequence of letters, or sounds. So it could also be a sequence of numbers as well. Indeed, you could replace the alphabet with numbers 1 - 26 and it would still work, as long as people learned the new system.
And any plastics that do break down form "microplastics" that have now found their way into more than a quarter [independent.co.uk] of fish sold in Indonesia and China.
Good place for it. Maybe they will stop putting toxic chemicals and heavy metals into products when they realize it's on their dinner plate.
Now, how would they realize it? Who would tell them? We already know that business interests trump public interests in the eyes of the government (just about any government). I saw an article further up talking about laws against defamation and slander in Indonesia. Might telling the public about the quality of a businesses products fall under that? I imagine it could.
No, people will continue to eat shit because it's cheaper.
It literally says that in the title.
Okay, it's a bad title. The article does not say that.
We don't need social security. There was a time before the government had its paws in charity. Back then people actually donated money without the threat of violence to charity. They saved up pennies and put them into accounts and investments for retirement. Now we live in a nanny state. We can't afford to send our kids to good schools. We're dependant on government schools to educate our kids and make them dependant on the state too!
No. I want to opt out of this ridicules system altogether. We don't need it. If you think like me and rather take a small insignificant risk or two for the sake of living free come join me in New Hampshire. I moved to New Hampshire because of the Free State Project. Which is a migration movement of people who want to get rid of government and the use of violence against peaceful people. We don't think the government has a right to control. To tell us what to do. We have a right to do as we please so long as it doesn't injure other people. We shouldn't be tagged (social security, licenses plates, etc) or require permission to live (work, drive, etc). We shouldn't be forced to pay taxes under the threat of violence (what they'll do if you don't comply). If you don't agree with the artificial construct called copy"right" they'll lock you up and take away your liberty. Well, that's just plane wrong and undemocratic. The Freenet project says it best: "You cannot guarantee freedom of speech and enforce copyright law" and you need freedom of speech for a true democracy. Freenet also says: "The core problem with copyright is that enforcement of it requires monitoring of communications, and you cannot be guaranteed free speech if someone is monitoring everything you say."
www.freestateproject.org www.freekeene.com www.freetalklive.com
Oh, look, another Libertarian fantasist. You know what happened before Social Security? Many elderly people ended up in abject poverty. Saving for retirement is great, I do it too. But I make a professional salary that puts me in the top 8% of national income. Poor people don't have the extra cash. If people gave to charity in enough volume to address the issue, we wouldn't need Social Security to begin with.
The idea that free people can live and get along without government might work on a commune or some other simple society. But for a complex society like the modern United States it is ridiculously inadequate. You think we can have a space agency, a modern military, and an interstate highway system with everyone just donating what they want to? Do you think you can plan ahead with everyone paying as much or as little tax as they want, or none at all? Do you think the national economy works like a fucking lemonade stand? Fire departments used to be private and paid for by people who wanted fire protection. They don't do that anymore. Maybe you should find out why.
Executives and senior managers got their bonuses, and the line staff ultimately got the shaft.
It's the American Way!
Go read up on the "agentic state". And try not to be like that.
Do people in an agentic state know they are in an agentic state? What are the implications to free will and personal autonomy of being in such a state?