New York lawmakers reach deal to legalize marijuana
New York lawmakers have reportedly reached an agreement to legalize recreational marijuana in the state.
According to Bloomberg, the state is prepared to legalize recreational marijuana use for people aged 21 and older.
The deal would reportedly include a 13 percent tax on sales and would provide licenses to dispensaries.
Nine percent of the 13 percent pot tax would go to the state, Bloomberg notes, while the remaining 4 percent would go to local governments. The New York governor's office estimates that a legal cannabis program in the state could bring in around $350 million annually, it added.
Also at CBS (2m37s video), and the New York Post.
See also: Legalizing Marijuana Is Cuomo's 2021 'Priority' For New York To Be 'Progressive Capital' Of U.S.
Why New York Legalizing Recreational Cannabis Won't Kill The Illicit Market
The Data On Legalizing Weed
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 25 2021, @04:28PM (19 children)
When are we going to demand the same from the feds?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 25 2021, @04:46PM (18 children)
Democratic Senators Elevate Federal Cannabis Reform To High Priority [forbes.com]
But don't worry, I'm sure you'll figure out a way to blame the Dems when every single Republican votes against it.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:11PM (15 children)
Republicans are irrelevant. They cannot stop anything without democrat assistance. You are using them as a distraction from Joe Manchin and democrat complicity
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:50PM (14 children)
That's only true if Democrats reform/remove the filibuster. Which of course has the Republicans screaming.
As it is, you need 60 votes to get any non-budget bill through the Senate without a single Republican being able to stop it dead in its tracks with a minor motion before a vote is taken. I can't find anything on whether they've actually invoked it yet rather than just loudly threaten -- we'll see what happens as more contentious bills approach a vote.
Personally, I'm all for at least returning the filibuster to its original form - a Senator has to get up and talk, continuously, until they either can't go on, or the Senate agrees to table the vote. Force them to make a public spectacle of themselves blocking a bill they know would pass. At the very least it might discourage them from blocking bills that have overwhelming public support.
Revoking it entirely might be good too - it's an anti-democratic tradition with no constitutional basis, and a long history of abuse. But it's been used for a lot of good things too, so I'm a little more on the fence about that.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:55PM
Precisely... What's the hold up? Rhetorical question... The charade is extremely familiar.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Socrastotle on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:11PM (9 children)
Why do you think the filibuster is anti-democratic?
I tend to go in the opposite direction and think that nothing should be able to pass without some extremely large majority - perhaps 80%. I'm not sure this 50% margin stuff is good for democracies, if not democracy. It seems somewhat peculiar to have a system where we (ostensibly) radically shift the direction of the country back and forth like some gigantic game of tug-of-war all over the noise of who got 51% and who got 49% this election.
This 50% game also seems to divide countries as more people become politically involved, with either side of the tug-of-war constantly becoming ever more radicalized and raging at the other side. An 80% margin for progress would help create a country of unity instead of division because you can't get by by just trying to force your views on other people. So the country would be formed in the image of the views and values of most people, instead of some sort of bipolar chaos.
When you actually consider it, I never really understood why we stuck with 50% besides because 'that's what we've always done.' Just seems like less than optimal idea.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @09:27PM (2 children)
That's a fair point. If you start from the assumption that it should take a supermajority to pass a new law, then there's not really any problem with the filibuster.
However, if that's how you want to run things, I'd say you should own up to it and set things up that way, rather than having some procedural loophole made tradition do the job.
I agree that polarization is a major problem, but I don't think changing the threshold to pass a bill is the solution, at least not without some far more fundamental reforms. I suspect that would just lead to total gridlock for everything that didn't clearly benefit the wealthy patrons pulling the strings on both sides. Which might be an improvement, but not a big one.
As I see it, the big problem with governments not representing the people comes down to two major flaws:
- Voting for a losing candidate means you get no representation
- "Us vs Them" elections mean many people are voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than for someone who truly represents them. So even many "winners" are poorly represented.
- The combination means that the majority of voters have poor or no representation.
The solution I'd like to see is Direct Representation
- Each voter chooses to support whichever Representative they like best out of all those elected.
- Rather than Representatives casting one vote each, they cast one vote per supporter.
- Ideally, voters can change who they support at any time, should events prove that another Representative deserves it more.
The Results:
- Each Representative's voting power depends on how many voters currently think they're the best of all available Representatives.
- With many broadly like-minded Representatives to choose from, each voter can choose which to support based on their differences, exerting a much more nuanced influence over policy direction.
- Representatives compete most strongly for voting power with their most like-minded colleagues. Which might reduce the solidarity of party politics, and increase the integrity of individual Representatives.
- A small coalition of Representatives commanding the majority of popular support could decide the outcome of any vote: A few good apples could outvote the bunch.
- Gerrymandering, etc. become far less effective, since voters can simply support a Representative from an entirely different district.
- Voters might take a more active interest in politics, to make sure they're actually supporting the best person for the job.
There's a lot more details I've been hammering out on how such a system might work, but those are the high points.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:19PM (1 child)
I would really love to have an ability to vote against all the candidates. If majority of the people vote against all, we shall have new elections and the candidates should be banned from them.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday March 26 2021, @12:11AM
A "no confidence" vote on the ballot is much needed, and people that don't vote should be counted as a "no confidence" vote also. The candidates will just have to be more interesting and get 50% of the eligible votes (every citizen over 18) to win.
Considering the quality of the candidates that do win, drawing straws might be the best system
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:17PM
I would apply that 80% rule to the incumbents in an election. They should have to win 80% of the vote to keep their position. Reelection, with 40 year or longer incumbency is an even bigger problem than the filibuster.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 26 2021, @02:34AM (4 children)
That only works in a functioning democracy. When you've got everything extremely polarised, all it means is that almost nothing gets passed. You've even got career obstructionists like Mitch McConnell who take pride in the fact that the only real "achievement" in their career has been to block everything the other guys did (I'm not actually aware of anything significant he's ever done apart from blocking whatever the other side wants to do).
In a nonfunctional democracy, an 80% margin means that nothing - or at least nothing significant - will ever get done. This is why most countries have abolished FPP systems, because they practically guarantee stagnation unless one party is unfortunate enough to screw up so badly that the other side gets an overwhelming majority... at which point it can ram through whatever it wants, which is just as bad when the two parties are so polarised.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Friday March 26 2021, @05:31AM (3 children)
Is passing laws that a possible majority of the country (within the range of statistical noise) disagrees with better than passing nothing at all? You might argue I'm appealing to whoever prefers the status quo more, but I'm not. Because both sides get their turn to oppress the other side. I think this itself plays a major role in the radicalism. For instance something I wrote about recently is that in the recent stimulus bill, they provide a variety of stimulus for fields such as farming - but it inexplicably excludes white farmers. It just feels like that's basically trolling a voiceless people who probably cast approximately 0% votes for Biden (rural, white, male). And of course our last president took at least vocal trolling to a whole new level, again primarily targeting people/interests that didn't vote for him. And, lo and behold, these groups that constantly get attacked by the other side end up becoming more and more radicalized against that side and in increasingly fervent support of theirs.
The point I was making with all of this is that I don't think our increasing factionalism is natural, I think it's being driven by our political system. And I say "ours" but this isn't unique to the US. You similar things happening throughout the world in other nations with systems that are least functionally similar to a 50% democracy. For instance in the UK, Brexit was based on a 51.89% margin. And they've seen their own increasingly radical factions starting to form around such things. What next, they get a 51% vote to return to the EU? And then a few years later another 51% to leave? A bare majority is the obvious idea you first come to when thinking about these things, but the outcomes its producing seem to be increasingly absurd.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 26 2021, @07:47AM (2 children)
That's because under Trump the stimulus bill there very explicably excluded black farmers. So this is just evening up the balance [yahoo.com].
But then it shouldn't be necessary to do this. A farmer is a farmer, doesn't matter what colour your skin is. It's just really weird looking in from the outside and seeing stuff like this. And as you point out, none of this is helping de-polarise people, first one side feels mistreated, then the other side feels mistreated.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Friday March 26 2021, @08:59AM (1 child)
You make me really hate to further elaborate on this point, but I feel obligated to nonetheless. The previous stimuli didn't use race as a factor in who gets help. The reason black farmers received less is partly mentioned in the article - they make up 1.2% of farmers. The other reason is that their farms are generally smaller than average (which means their overhead is also lower than average). In 2017 they accounted for a total of 0.4% [usda.gov] of total agricultural sales in the US. And the article states that they received a total of 0.5% of "Market Facilitation Program" subsidies and 0.86% of USDA assistance.
The article uses statistics to lie by leading the reader to believe that the previous administration was excluding blacks, so this one will exclude whites. That's just not true. Under he previous administration, had those black farmers been white - they'd have received exactly the same. It's only under the current rules where your race determines how much assistance you deserve.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 26 2021, @09:11AM
Ah, fair enough. I wasn't interested enough in it to try and dig through ten different sources' statistics to see which one was the least manipulated...
(Score: 1, Troll) by Captival on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:48PM (2 children)
Don't forget that the filibuster is racist, and anyone who wants to keep it is a white supremacist. [foxnews.com] Of course it was totally fine from 2016-2020, but now a Democrat is in charge so any dissent against government is terrorism again. Just like questioning election integrity is the worst possible crime you can commit unless a Democrat loses [thehill.com] in which case it's necessary
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:57PM (1 child)
He Lost, Get Over It.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 29 2021, @01:33AM
Don't hold your breath. They couldn't get past the fact that Hillary lost even after several years, continuing to bring her up years later at the drop of a hat, as though what she might have done in their fevered dreams somehow excused the actual president's many transgressions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:48PM (1 child)
Blame the democrats? It took him 20 minutes or so. New record.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:21PM
Why not? Republicans are nothing but a distraction. Democrats are the majority now. Prohibition is their baby at this time. Any failure to end it is their fault.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday March 25 2021, @04:51PM (5 children)
The "dispensary" system will be around for a while as a legacy of Prohibition 2.0. Growing up in Virginia, my dad could buy beer at regular stores, but not liquor. When he wanted that, he'd go to one of the specially built Art Deco stores that were owned by the state. In essence, liquor was sold by a state-controlled dispensary. IIRC, he couldn't even touch the bottle until it was purchased. The clerk controlled the inventory behind the counter. In time, Virginia made those "ABC stores" look more like regular stores, and you filled your basked and brought it to the front like a normal person. AFAIK, you still can't buy liquor at regular stores though. When I moved around the country, seeing liquor in a regular grocery store was pretty funny--and society doesn't break down, although they do put security caps on some of the booze to prevent theft, it's sold mostly like a regular product.
Heck, in my teens Virginia still had dry counties.
Prohibition 2.0 isn't really over until you can buy weed like cigarettes at least. In the grocery store you just ask for them. They're still behind a counter controlled by a clerk, but they're everywhere. I don't expect smoking products to ever be out in the aisles like booze. It's too easy for young people to slip them in to a coat pocket; but the whole "dispensary" thing really is a joke to me.
Also, organized crime isn't going to go away. People were moonshining decades after Prohibition, and they'll be doing illegal grows for decades after Prohibition 2.0. You can pretty much guarantee it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:56PM
>Also, organized crime isn't going to go away. People were moonshining decades after Prohibition, and they'll be doing illegal grows for decades after Prohibition 2.0. You can pretty much guarantee it.
No doubt there were plenty of moonshiners, both for personal consumption and to sell out of the back of their truck at tax-free prices. But that's not organized crime, and I have my doubts about how many were working for the mob long after the big money went out of the industry.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:58PM (1 child)
Remember these?
https://whitneyhess.com/blog/2009/05/12/photo-of-the-day-cigarette-vending-machine/ [whitneyhess.com]
https://www.ebth.com/items/6708177-vintage-art-deco-national-cigarette-vending-machine [ebth.com]
They were ubiquitous in my youth. Back then, cigarettes sold over the counter for 35 cents a pack, going up to about 60 or 70 cents by the time I graduated high school. Vending machines were always a little more expensive, but high school kids hit them because no one asked questions. Not that a lot of sales clerks asked questions anyway.
But, back to your specific quote - except for the vending machines, cigarettes have always been behind the counter, because they are so easily pilfered.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:23PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about the vending machines. I thought about it when I was a kid, but never did it. As a general rule they were still close enough to adults that you were going to be seen. The one I remember was in the lobby of a restaurant we used to visit all the time, right next to the host's table. OTOH, I also remember being in Myrtle Beach on vacation when I was about 11, and another kid about my age walked right up to the vending machine and bought a pack. That machine was on the back side of our motel, and no adults were anywhere near it. Even then I thought to myself, "that kid is destroying his youth.". I might have still been on the swim team at that point. Hard to go for that blue ribbon with a smoker's cough!
I must confess that as an adult I tried tobacco legally a few times. Fortunately, it never took.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 25 2021, @11:29PM
About 70 NJ towns already prohibited or severely limited marijuana business. As per your crime point, illegal grass is way cheaper already and will probably stay so.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday March 26 2021, @02:39AM
Sounds like the Systembolaget / Vinmonopolet in Scandinavia. It works about as well as you'd expect it to.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:27PM (14 children)
fuck the state and local govs. why the fuck should they get any new taxes at all? it's not a fucking privilege granted by these parasitic scum. Choosing one's medicine, however misguided is every free human being's natural right. All these weed legalization orgs and lawyers are doing is turning a right into a taxed privilege. shameless whores.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:36PM (4 children)
They do the same already with booze.
NY needs to feed its oppressive state and local govts. They need MONEY, and lots of it, to run their empires. If elder prostitution were to somehow become acceptable, I think the state would pimp out everybody grandma in the nursing homes.
(Score: 3, Touché) by leon_the_cat on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:54PM (3 children)
Cuomo already did that
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tokolosh on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:08PM (2 children)
He has done more for the solvency of the Social Security system than any other politician.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:15PM (1 child)
One of the few comments that literally made lol.
I think we need a black humor mod. Funny just doesn't cover it here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @04:51AM
Given the context of the username, that's double funny.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:53PM (3 children)
The Federal Government is the one that should have the least power. #1 power should be the citizens, #2 power should be the states, #3 power should be the federal government. The federal government was created to serve the states and the states were created to serve the people. The problem is that the state government and even more so the federal government, is a concentration of said power. Thus, the whole pyramid is inverted, with whatever the federal government does, having a much greater affect on the people than visa versa. Revolutions not withstanding as that could be seen as much more of a federal government screw up than anything.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:29PM
I don't know where you get that idea. The Constitution already says federal laws supersede state ones.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:23PM
This would limit how well the government can take care of us.
We have it better than anyone in the world. The government graciously allows us keep some portion of our income as the government sees fit. Our health care system takes in the largest amounts of money of any country in the world. Private industry can buy, sell, collect and trade congress people at uncommonly low prices compared to some other countries. The US grants more patents than anywhere. We pass more regulations than anywhere.
We are clearly number one and have nothing to complain about.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 27 2021, @06:46AM
Not even, your local municipality should trump state. There is shit ton of stuff that's happening in my town, and we can't do anything about it because it's being pushed by the state legistlature.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:10PM
Hey! You appear to love freedom and see this for what it is: a new tax grab. Let's be friends.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:27PM (3 children)
Can't wait for libertarians to comprehend the concept of governance. Maybe we should let them tank the country for a decade, might be less painful in the long run to let them get it figured out sooner rather than later.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 26 2021, @12:00AM (1 child)
They comprehend it fine. They just don't want it applied to them, and want it applied double-hard, pointy end first, to whoever they consider "outgroup." If you want a single, five-syllable word that says "selfish, shortsighted, stupid, and probably psychopathic asshole," then "libertarian" is the one you're looking for.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @07:35PM
"and want it applied double-hard, pointy end first, to whoever they consider "outgroup.""
not true. i can handle my own (rare) problems with "outgroups". i don't need some parasites' henchmen to do it for me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @07:38PM
"governance"?! lmao! What in the fuck do you think these useless, unemployable sacks of shit do for the country? you live in a dream world. Everything that gets done gets done is in spite of government, not because of it.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:33PM (13 children)
This is a worse assault on democracy than gerrymandering... the Democrat lawmakers know that if people smoke enough weed they'll get brain-damaged and vote Democrat.
(Score: 3, Offtopic) by Tork on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:52PM (11 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:55PM (4 children)
Perhaps, but I get the feeling that it's more of a go with the flow. Now, if that go with the flow is "here take this assault rifle and head that way", then they're more likely to do so. Someone that is just as likely to be hallucinating as to be thinking, isn't someone I'd want to trust with much.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:06PM
Heh. What specific drugs are you talking about?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:17PM
>Perhaps, but I get the feeling that it's more of a go with the flow.
I take it you don't personally know many stoners. All those I've met will go with the flow so long as they like where it's going. And if they don't like where it's going they'll let it flow right on past. "Nah man, I'm good. Have fun"
Unless it's something they're morally opposed to. As a rule they're very big on the whole live and let live thing, and one of the surest ways to rile them up is to try to force your will on someone else. Every stoner I've ever met would respond to
> "here take this assault rifle and head that way"
with something on the spectrum between "Dude... Why would you want to do that? You need to mellow out. Here try some of this.", and accept the gun before wrestling you to the ground to keep you from hurting anyone else. Depending on just how sober they were at the moment, and how confrontational.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:15PM (1 child)
Well, the Hashashim were reputed to use grass, so you may have a point. But it's not clear that that's what or all they used. Most people who use lots of grass seem to be laid back and unenergetic. I can think of a couple of exceptions, though.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday March 26 2021, @12:04AM
It seems to affect people differently. My brother and sister were (are?) both tremendous potheads. Brother is a fairly stereotypical musician type--makes a living giving music lessons and delivering food on the side, not the brightest, pretty mellow but believes some odd things because he hasn't got much of a perception filter (and no doubt the weed didn't help). My sister, on the other hand, is a stereotypical type-A and her work deals with adoption, child abuse, etc. In her case, the weed seemed to bring her down to a normal level of function if anything.
And then there's me, the complete abstainer whose one vice is caffeine (and whose one virtue is knowing her limits). People have suggested weed. I tried it once in college and was not impressed: I felt heavy, slow, stupid, and ate an entire full-size bag of potato chips in one sitting. Best chips I ever had, but no, not my idea of a good time.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:06PM (3 children)
Yeah, the calculation is it will take the subjects' minds off why they can't go to the library, a concert, a party or a bar in their locked down state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:11PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:17PM (1 child)
And authoritarians are a million times worse.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:06PM
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:53PM (1 child)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Cannabis is linked to paranoia. Conspiratorial ideation ties in closely with that, and a lot of the insurrection was driven by a conspiracy theory. Further study is needed, and now that this stuff is legal we can learn more easily. Anecdotally it seems like a lot of the stoners I have met loved them some conspiracy theories. Weed culture is all over the political spectrum these days. Of course there's always the whole correlation/causation thing. It could just be that paranoid people prone to believe conspiracies are naturally drawn to weed.
In any event, I bet there were plenty of smokers there. That guy with the horns, I'd be surprised if he *didn't* smoke it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:02PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:22PM
I'm loving the post-dump meltdowns from you crybabies ;-)
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday March 25 2021, @05:55PM (6 children)
Great. All we need now is sufficient education so no one would WANT to smoke shit like this.
Yea... that will happen about the same time people stop believing in imaginary sky fairies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:14PM (1 child)
Even less likely once the government starts getting those nice juicy cashflows from cannabis taxes. We're more likely to see mandatory "Our Friend Mr THC" lessons added to Grade One curriculum.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:50PM
Exactly--just like it happened with alcohol and cigarettes!
Wow, conservative Republicans sure are smart!!!1!1
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:24PM (1 child)
So I'm guessing you're a mormon that has never even touched a beer or cigarette. Or, like our illustrious new justice do you "LIKE BEER OKAY?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:11PM
We would all be better off without them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @07:50PM
What sort of education would possibly accomplish that?
People like taking the edge off sometimes. Heck, not even just people - intentional intoxication is seen all over the animal kingdom. There's nothing wrong with that in moderation, and as intoxicants go cannabis offers pretty much the best cost/benefit ratio available by a long shot. It certainly outclasses alcohol in every respect: rather than making you stupid, clumsy, and overconfident like alcohol does, it tends to makes you lazy, cautious, and more creative. Also easily amused, and far more appreciative of pleasure in all its forms. And it causes no serious health problems even to heavy lifelong users.
Perhaps most tellingly, amongst all the intellectuals I know who use both, almost all would rather give up alcohol than cannabis. I think any sort of "education" that would steer people away from intellectuals' drug of choice is probably more properly termed propaganda.
Unless you're just a teatotaler - in which case, hey, you do you, just don't try to impose your views on other people. Also, you might want to do some research into the long-term impact of caffine on emotional health and consider giving up your tea addiction. ;-)
(Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Friday March 26 2021, @08:13AM
Actually quite the opposite my dear boy. If people were properly educated they would take it regularly. Perhaps you should read up on the endocannabinoid system. There are reasons the push for medical cannabis was so strong. Or you could just go on believing the reefer madness disinfo campaign
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tokolosh on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:11PM (3 children)
It is NOT legalization, it is decriminalization. It is a restoration of your right, not a grant of a privilege.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 25 2021, @06:27PM
Can't sell lemonade without the tax man getting involved, either.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday March 25 2021, @08:11PM (1 child)
That distinction has nothing to do with the difference in terms.
As I understand it, decriminalization means that a substance is still illegal to possess, but there's no longer any criminal penalty attached to doing so - though there may still be civil penalties (fines, etc). While legalization means it's no longer illegal to possess it.
Sales are still a completely different issue. Alcohol for example is legal to possess, even though *selling* alcohol still requires licensing, paying special taxes, etc. Similarly, fresh cooked food is legal, but selling it requires you to maintain a server's license in good standing. You wouldn't say that food is only decriminalized would you? Heck, selling pretty much *anything* requires a vending license in most states - your kid's lemonade stand is likely technically illegal, as is your yard sale. Though often either exceptions are carved into the law for such short-term endeavors, or they're simply "overlooked" with the understanding that that wasn't the sort of activity the law was intended to stop (though try having a yard sale every week and you'll likely run into problems)
(Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Friday March 26 2021, @10:42AM
Yes but decriminalization always has a threshold, since sales are still banned. The threshold determines whether or not you can be considered a dealer or not. In Germany they decriminalized but allowed each 'state' to decide on that threshold, most decided on 6 grams(some were higher 20 or so). So while it was decriminalized you could still be arrested for having 7 grams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @01:26AM (2 children)
Why not tax 1000000000000%, then we can give everyone free housing, free college, free healthcare, and free sex robots!!! Because if it's paid for by tax, it is FREE!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 26 2021, @01:41AM
What about free weed?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday March 26 2021, @05:15PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by jman on Sunday March 28 2021, @02:52PM
Based on the above counts, that leaves us with an estimated 450 Thousand NY Marijuana Consumers.
With the Governor's office estimating 350 million in annual revenue, the state would make around eight hundred dollars a year per consumer, or a little under $2.25 daily.
In the US, nearly 120 billion dollars a year are spent on beer, with a litte over 40 percent of our 350 million people enjoying that beverage.
For NY, that works out to around 360 thousand people spending a little under $2.25 a day on beer.
No doubt about it: Folks like their consumables. And that $2.25 figure sure does get around!
But somehow the 350 million revenue estimate doesn't seem right.
Unless an equivalent amount of marijuana will cost the same as a six-pack, perhaps whoever came with that figure for pot sales was, er, on something. I think they stand to make much more.