The Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-wash...
Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal supply for the state's demand. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-lega...
But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a typo).
And as a result the price of legal recreational pot in WA is around $35 a gram which is over three times the going rate for medicinal pot and illicit pot.
That's interesting. Do people seek out the legal weed and pay the premium? Or is it suffering for lack of demand compared to black market weed. I don't live in WA (or smoke pot), but if I did, I probably would pay the premium just to keep it all above board & guarantee quality.
So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...
If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.
Enough people have already demonstrated willingness to pay the higher price that I'm not sure I believe your argument. And at any rate, legalization is likely to grow the population of smokers, and that growth will likely be among those most interested in legal acquisition. In WA, prices will come down as supply increases, so it's not a static environment anyway.
If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly among people with modest to low financial means.
However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users) They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.
>They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.
That's the hypocracy. It's not their behaviour that leads to acceptance, it's the state deciding what's acceptable or not . That is to incure tax and decrease spending, for all I care, and maybe a twisted social experiment of sorts, but not in first line for the well being of the people. Supporting that with the rhetorical finger pointing at The Terrorist is so utterly hypocritical, I'm at loss of words.
Surely, the argument is not immoral, but it's completely missing the point. Us against The Terrorist is too simple a frame of mind, it's agrevating, but not to a calmed down stoner of course.
And "the State" decides based on people wanting the activity normalized just as it does economic reasons.
Those "calmed down" stoners may well be politically active. In the past, they were. The classic stereotype paints the stoner as living on the couch, munching, doing nothing.
Lots of those out there for sure. However, there are a lot of people who use lightly, or for creative reasons. Those people tend to be politically active. They also generally abhor bull shit.
Right now, I'm not sure our system can operate without some degree of hypocrisy. But, it is the system we have. There isn't going to be another one, so we've got to work with and sometimes hack the one we've got. Maybe it can be made better.
I'm not a stoner. I've smoked pot once this year. In January. The state has accepted the de facto status quo and made it the de jure status quo by way of a popular vote (which won with an 11.4% margin). People are going to smoke pot, or they're not. The legalization of marijuana is unlikely to meaningfully change users' and potential users' relationship to it.
Also, the story I linked to previously was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize. I think that qualifies as being slightly more substantiated than "rhetorical finger pointing".
Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem attack to try to make your point.
It's not ad hominem, it's hyperbolic and a reference to the synergy of Distraction and FUD.
Of course, legalization makes a difference. Dozens of people will think Weed is not a drug anymore, just like alcohol and tobacco are often not taken serious.
Meanwhile, you use an argument of authority. Keep your disappointment. I could point to a couple sources about the Terrorist strawman, but I'm sure you know the context.
I hear the legal recreational weed is selling out, that's part of the reason why only two stores are open, the supply is so limited. You can drive by and see a line out the door. The recreational weed is a separate supply, they had to grow it from seed and could not fence medicinal or illicit weed.
Because that supply doesn't come close to meeting the demand, most people either have to see a doctor and get their green card, or keep buying on the black market.
There were also some pretty big gaffes with the lottery process to allow the first stores to open. There was very little vetting of the participants and as a result many of the people who got picked were completely unprepared to open and run a retail business. Companies with experience and money to get a store open lost out to people who just wanted to put their name in the hat and have no intention or real capability of opening a store.
The U.S. has done the prohibition experiment twice now, and it was an unmitigated disaster both times. The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will. And yet we're still arguing about it.
Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.
Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
I didn't say that it didn't work, I said it was an unmitigated disaster. A program can achieve its ostensible goals and still be disastrous. Jim Crow "worked" too.
Of course alcohol prohibition didn't even achieve its ostensible goal of eliminating alcohol from the American diet. Whether it reduced consumption at all (by volume of alcohol) is in dispute. There's no dispute that it lead to consumption of stronger beverages, in the same way that poppy prohibition has eliminated the use of poppy tea (an utterly benign preparation) in favor of heroin and even stronger drugs.
As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
Actually, given all the attention on the well known, controlled substances, making a little Poppy Tea flies well under the radar, and sometimes happens with Grannie's decorative flowers.
That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.
Sorry. The link isn't working for me. Does the study properly account for percent alcohol by volume? Studies I have read showed people just switching beer for whiskey. The consumption difference was negligible once normalized.
If I showed data that shooting a person in the head was an effective means of removing brain tumours, it would be very unlikely that anyone anywhere under any circumstances would ever agree with the proposition, "shooting a person in the head words in removing brain tumours".
It's just not the way "worked" is used, and falling back on the most literal, narrow meaning of the term actually signals conceding the argument.
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level."
If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.
Alcohol prohibition is an apt historical lesson, especially regarding violence and black markets, but there is a significant difference: the intended targets. Alcohol was outlawed primarily to target men, particularly the violent and alcoholic, and was a stand-in for women's issues. It was the first time domestic violence began to be (indirectly) talked about, and was a major driver for women's suffrage and activism.
Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities (and later expanded as a way to scare young people out of counter-cultures). In a sense, it has been extremely effective at its intended goal: systematic oppression of The Other. (The fact that early demonization of marijuana was intertwined with fears of white women being seduced by jazz culture or raped by "reefer madness" also signals an evo-psych component: removing competitor males from the gene pool by locking up as many black men as possible.)
In addition to reducing undue U.S. interference with other countries' affairs, legalization is badly needed at home to reduce the prison population and address the racial injustices of the legal system.
"Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities"
Note: targeted at minorities by minorities.
The African American community was hugely supportive of the "War on Drugs", until it became clear that it wasn't helping.
But seriously, in the 1960s through 1990s, plenty of powerful African American politicians supported the War on Drugs.
http://prisontime.org/files/2013/07/oberia-dempsey-war-on-dr... . The "War on Drugs" was built with huge support from the African American community, we Americans as a whole thought it would be good for us.
It was believed that the white man oppressed African Americans through the use of drugs. Therefore, by declaring the war on drugs, the Black man would become freer. Things didn't turn out that way :-(
Today, the "War on Drugs" is clearly not helping. Eric Holder / President Obama ordered the FBI / Justice Department to go easier against drug offenders.
So it is clear to our current leaders (as well as African American leaders) that we need to end the "War on Drugs".
> Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities
Cannabis (and pretty much every psychoactive drugs except alcohol) is prohibited in almost every countries in the world. Isn't it a bit simplistic to think that oppressing minorities was the only reason behind it?
Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities
Do you have a "when" in mind there? Cannabis has a colorful history in the USA, and it does not seem like its entire history has been centered on "suppressing the Other". To my knowledge it was originally regulated as a part of the opium/narcotics laws that swept the world in the early 1900's.
The opium laws were targeted at shutting down the global opium trade, and I believe they were initiated by China. It's my impression that marijuana just got "caught up in" the change.
There's absolutely no inherent problem with tax cuts for the wealthy - or anybody for that matter.
The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had).
For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his presidency in relation to the tax cuts. The problem was the extreme spending increases during his eight years, combined with cutting revenue.
There's no inherent moral basis to claim rich people should always get soaked on taxes, even when there's plenty of revenue such that you have a surplus - it's a question of balancing.
I'd argue unchecked spending expansion, drastically faster than the rate of population increase (ie what has happened in the last 13x years), is far more destructive than tax cuts for the wealthy. If you run a disciplined budget, and an efficient government, you will more than likely be able to bring down taxes for all people over time. The US has done the exact opposite lately, as have so many other failing welfare states across the globe.
> There's absolutely no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy
The data say otherwise.
> The problem has always been deficit spending
No. In Kansas they cut spending along with taxes (no choice -- a state can't run a long-term deficit). The result has been such an unmitigated disaster that even many prominent Republicans are now supporting the Democratic candidate for governor.
Yes, of course. Just like Jim Crow laws are a success if they keep the races segregated. And ultimately this will be up to the people of Kansas to decide on the quality metric they want to apply to their state's economic policy. But I think it's telling that many prominent Republican politicians are endorsing the Democratic candidate for governor. I don't think they'd be doing that if there was a consensus that the results of Sam Brownback's experiment have been a "huge success."
> There's absolutely no problem with tax cuts for the wealthy
There's absolutely a problem with relative tax burden shifts from the poor to the wealthy (which is what tax cuts disproportionately for the wealthy are), independently of overall spending/tax balance.
Whether deficit spending is a problem is a completely separate question (though I'd argue that the simple "deficit = bad" position is ludicrous, current spending in excess of revenue is good or bad based on what the spending is for and what the rationally expected outcome of the spending is; sure, interest has a cost, but there are benefits to weight against that cost if the spending is well-chosen.)
> The data are unambiguous: prohibition doesn't work, never has, never will
Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold? I have no doubt that cannabis should be legal: not only is it relatively harmless, but it's very easy to grow. But what about other more addictive and dangerous drugs?
I would say yes. Most of the problems we have with drugs are a result of drugs being illegal. If heroin addicts were able to buy a known product, unadulterated, at a reasonable price, we would have less crime and fewer ODs. And absolutely no one would try "bath salts" when they could get safe, researched, legal highs.
If the argument is that everyone would just become drug addicts, I would argue that a hell of a lot of us already are drug addicts, just addicts to more socially acceptable drugs. And if reality can't compete with drugs, reality should step up its game.
I’m wondering to which extent this is simply a temporary effect because the overall population is pleased with this decision. I don’t believe it’s only that but I could imagine that it contributes with a low two digit percentage.
The legal implications of these changes are only one (important) side of what's happening.
I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better.
Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's.
I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic revolution.
I am absolutely in favor of the legalization of marijuana and psychedelics, though I probably would not use them myself even in they were legal. Also, I do not hold out your hope at all that their increased use would herald a renaissance of any kind. This is based on the number of people I know who are habitual pot users, frequently trip, and accomplish absolutely nothing.
You could also say the same thing about writing and the printing press.
Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them.
It's interesting that it was introduced by a Dem. I think there should be a move that Dem formally apologise for this law - or all the weed smokers no longer vote for them and they become unelectable.
The nature of both parties have changed substantially since the 30s, no current legislators of either party were involved in government when that bill was passed, and both parties have had ample opportunities to correct the mistake. Holding current Democrats disproportionately responsible is myopic. Refusal to vote for politicians of any party who are on the wrong side of this issue is another matter, for anyone who views it as the most important issue ("weed smoker" or not).
I still don't see why an organization should not apologise for its own policy.
Post-communist states did apologise for things they did decades before while being very different regimes. And that was a good thing; stubborness would be a disaster there, you can't move forward unless you repent.
If you think of it, Marujuana criminalization took a toll of human lives comparable to GULAG.
To paraphrase OED, an apology is an expression of regret for something one has done wrong. An organization cannot experience regret, so demanding an apology from the organization is guaranteed to be empty. An apology from members of the organization may well be meaningful, but the current members of the organization have not done wrong (at least, no wrong that caused the initial passing of the 1937 act).
Basing your voting on whether your politicians are improving drug policy and/or have committed to do so on the future is totally reasonable. Basing your voting on your demand for an inherently empty ritual seems... not.
edited to add:
Note that a Truth & Reconciliation type process is an entirely different thing - exposing and acknowledging the truth can be important and allow healing in ways that have no particular relationship to emotions fictionally experienced by the organization.
I can regret, i.e. feel sorry for, what I didn't cause. I can also apologize in defense of someone else.
You English shouldn't constantly use Greek words if you don't understand them * ;)
In that sense, speeches in senate are exactly that, even before laws are put in action. Sadly, my opinion about the credibility can't be written here in good faith.
An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Given the wink, you may well know this, though it could be that the gibe was intended in jest but the broader import was not so I felt it necessary to make it explicit. A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment.
You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder.
As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
I'm sorry? Are you saying that unless we pretend that words actually mean what they meant in other languages centuries ago, we're redefining words to control thought and political discourse?
No, I'm hinting at the potential corruption of language, if not used properly. Sorry for the sarcasm.
>An etymology is not a word's "true meaning".
Anyway, it's still a good indicator.
>Given the wink, you may well know this
Indeed, I have no hope of convincing the MW editors here, or correcting what seems to be
>A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment.
It's not derived. It is the same word given a second meaning. Languages aren't separate entities, they are intertwined and defined by the speakers. In that sense you are right, a word should mean whatever it is intended to mean.
Still, it's a loanword and that implies a certain responsibility for the user, as with any loan. I don't see any argument for the necessity of transforming the meaning. I think the transformation is a mutation, coming from ignorant usage and that goes against my grain. Simplification might have merit, but I'm all for generalization.
>You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability.
Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder.
What's the reverse of the euphemism treadmill? Apology is suffering it. A proper apology would explain all the reasons for the laws, which are by the way still in action. The focus shouldn't be on acknowledgment, but on correcting the understanding of the situation, to ease any confusion.
To my understanding
>As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
Exactly.
Therefore words heavily rely on context and the context here was clear. The GGGP demanded an excuse, a justification or most importantly a clear explanation as to why the law has changed.
Obviously though, that couldn't be expected, because there is no clear situation, on the federal level it's still illegal, there was no change. That, I think, really requires an explanation. That is a double standard, don't you see a new-speak reference in this?
A joke really didn't work out if it has to be explained at length. Maybe, because secretly I was angry that my english isn't perfect and it's your fault ;)
This is mildly interesting, and I don't intend this as any disrespect, but I think the EV on this conversation has fallen too low to be worth the effort continuing it is seeming to require given my other responsibilities.
If they do regret it, they can show that by working on fixing it. If they aren't going to do that, I don't care if they say they regret it. Even before the additional issues we've digressed into.
The pardon in 2013 was granted by the Queen, who was already queen and capable of granting him pardon when he was convicted. Her apology in that context could well be meaningful (I don't know whether she gave one alongside the pardon - the pardon could possibly be interpreted as one, but it's a slightly different thing as well).
The 2009 apology by Gordon Brown made somewhat less sense. I don't have any strong opposition to well-intentioned nonsensical theatrics, but I think that it can lead to confusion and that keeping in mind that an organization is a different kind of thing than an individual is important.
Representative Doughton, who introduced the bill, was a Southerner and named after Robert E. Lee. I'm pretty sure he'd have been a Republican if he'd entered politics 40 years later (i.e. around when he retired).
Stalin, who caused death to hundreds of thousands of people, would probably be not be a communist if he entered politics after the fall of communism. Doesn't make communists apologising for him a bad thing; doesn't make communists being stubborn about him a good thing.
Further, the political parties are not homogenous. My local party, a legislative district representing about 140,000 voters, has its own platform. We disagree often, strenuously with the state organization, various campaigns (which are completely separate from the parties), the caucuses. From our point of view, other state's orgs (of the nominally same party) are more or less lunatics and the national party is a complete tool of the dual party corporatist war party.
I agree it should be legal. However it should not be fully commercialised. Colorado has gone too far.
It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted.
It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco.
It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.
Since when is Tobacco in Australia sold in plain packaging? AFAIK (it's been a while since I lived in Australia) the health messages have to be very prominent, and they can't advertise on TV, radio, or near schools, but they can still advertise in some places (print) and package as they like modulo "Smoking Kills Babies" type messages. (It's funny, my smoker friends used to identify their packets of cigarettes by the message -- "oh mine was the 'causes birth defects' package" (they all smoked Marlboro Lights or Benson & Hedges)
I agree with you. There's a whole trend of advertising cannabis as something cool (or as a miracle "natural" medication that cures everything, from anxiety to back pain).
Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it.
That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.
Cannabis can be consumed in various forms. For instance in Europe, most people mix cannabis resin ("hashish") with tobacco, whereas in North America people smoke weed pure. Other ways include vaporisation and ingestion. Mixing with tobacco is probably the worse way as nicotine is highly addictive and we all know the health problems associated with tobacco.
So no, I don't think they should be authorised to sell their tobacco cigarettes with cannabis inside! Actually, I hope that legalisation will give the opportunity to inform people about this.
People cheer for the marijuana-legalization underdogs now, but endgame, if it proceeds to all 50 states, looks like this: Altria and other players in the $112 billion US tobacco market buy up the little cannabis startups and start advertising and promoting marijuana use on large scale. The government steps in to regulate distribution and advertising.
Is that what we want? Because that's where we're going.
Look at beer. There is a thriving home and micro brew type market out there.
Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it.
IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users.
For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well.
If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.
87 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] threadThe Washington Liquor Control Board, in its infinite wisdom, only authorized about 25% of the total amount of legal pot-growing necessary to satisfy demand in the state, which means that the black market here in Washington is still flourishing: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/07/08/how-wash...
Thankfully, it sounds like the LCB started changing its tune about pot production on Friday, but given how slow they seem to be in implementation of things like this, who knows how long it'll be before there's enough legal supply for the state's demand. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/State-may-allow-more-lega...
But, this still doesn't address the other fundamental issue here: the number of places where you can legally buy marijuana in Seattle is currently 2 (not a typo).
So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...
If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly among people with modest to low financial means.
However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users) They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.
That's the hypocracy. It's not their behaviour that leads to acceptance, it's the state deciding what's acceptable or not . That is to incure tax and decrease spending, for all I care, and maybe a twisted social experiment of sorts, but not in first line for the well being of the people. Supporting that with the rhetorical finger pointing at The Terrorist is so utterly hypocritical, I'm at loss of words. Surely, the argument is not immoral, but it's completely missing the point. Us against The Terrorist is too simple a frame of mind, it's agrevating, but not to a calmed down stoner of course.
Those "calmed down" stoners may well be politically active. In the past, they were. The classic stereotype paints the stoner as living on the couch, munching, doing nothing.
Lots of those out there for sure. However, there are a lot of people who use lightly, or for creative reasons. Those people tend to be politically active. They also generally abhor bull shit.
Right now, I'm not sure our system can operate without some degree of hypocrisy. But, it is the system we have. There isn't going to be another one, so we've got to work with and sometimes hack the one we've got. Maybe it can be made better.
Also, the story I linked to previously was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize. I think that qualifies as being slightly more substantiated than "rhetorical finger pointing".
Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem attack to try to make your point.
Meanwhile, you use an argument of authority. Keep your disappointment. I could point to a couple sources about the Terrorist strawman, but I'm sure you know the context.
Because that supply doesn't come close to meeting the demand, most people either have to see a doctor and get their green card, or keep buying on the black market.
Funny thing, though, we've done a similar experiment with tax cuts for the wealthy three times now: once in the 1920's, once starting in the 1980s, and most recently in Kansas. The results have been similarly disastrous all three times. And yet we're still arguing about that too.
Whether or not it was worth the cost is a separate issue; I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't. But the argument can be made that it did "work" in reducing alcohol consumption.
As for Jim Crow 'working,' it's notable that drug prohibition has 'worked' as a Jim Crow as well.
That aside, the parallels regarding stronger formulations and compounds is spot on.
It's just not the way "worked" is used, and falling back on the most literal, narrow meaning of the term actually signals conceding the argument.
"We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply to about 60-70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level."
If I was trying to prohibit something but could only manage to prevent 30-40 percent of it compared to when it was legal I would certainly feel I had failed. This is without factoring in all the other problems Prohibition caused.
Cannabis prohibition, on the other hand, has historically been targeted explicitly at minorities (and later expanded as a way to scare young people out of counter-cultures). In a sense, it has been extremely effective at its intended goal: systematic oppression of The Other. (The fact that early demonization of marijuana was intertwined with fears of white women being seduced by jazz culture or raped by "reefer madness" also signals an evo-psych component: removing competitor males from the gene pool by locking up as many black men as possible.)
In addition to reducing undue U.S. interference with other countries' affairs, legalization is badly needed at home to reduce the prison population and address the racial injustices of the legal system.
In the USA. And the rest of the world inherited that for free. Which is kind of sad actually, living by other people ideosyncrasies.
Note: targeted at minorities by minorities.
The African American community was hugely supportive of the "War on Drugs", until it became clear that it wasn't helping.
But seriously, in the 1960s through 1990s, plenty of powerful African American politicians supported the War on Drugs. http://prisontime.org/files/2013/07/oberia-dempsey-war-on-dr... . The "War on Drugs" was built with huge support from the African American community, we Americans as a whole thought it would be good for us.
It was believed that the white man oppressed African Americans through the use of drugs. Therefore, by declaring the war on drugs, the Black man would become freer. Things didn't turn out that way :-(
Today, the "War on Drugs" is clearly not helping. Eric Holder / President Obama ordered the FBI / Justice Department to go easier against drug offenders.
So it is clear to our current leaders (as well as African American leaders) that we need to end the "War on Drugs".
You are talking about a much later stage, when the power dynamic was one of entrenched power.
I do think it is important to remember that the African American community was pretty happy with the inception of the "War on Drugs" however.
Cannabis (and pretty much every psychoactive drugs except alcohol) is prohibited in almost every countries in the world. Isn't it a bit simplistic to think that oppressing minorities was the only reason behind it?
Do you have a "when" in mind there? Cannabis has a colorful history in the USA, and it does not seem like its entire history has been centered on "suppressing the Other". To my knowledge it was originally regulated as a part of the opium/narcotics laws that swept the world in the early 1900's.
The problem has always been deficit spending. That spending wasn't cut with the tax cuts; or that tax cuts weren't paid for out of surplus (which obviously the modern US Govt. has rarely had).
For example, had George W. Bush not gone on a massive spending spree, there would have been zero deficit problem during his presidency in relation to the tax cuts. The problem was the extreme spending increases during his eight years, combined with cutting revenue.
There's no inherent moral basis to claim rich people should always get soaked on taxes, even when there's plenty of revenue such that you have a surplus - it's a question of balancing.
I'd argue unchecked spending expansion, drastically faster than the rate of population increase (ie what has happened in the last 13x years), is far more destructive than tax cuts for the wealthy. If you run a disciplined budget, and an efficient government, you will more than likely be able to bring down taxes for all people over time. The US has done the exact opposite lately, as have so many other failing welfare states across the globe.
The data say otherwise.
> The problem has always been deficit spending
No. In Kansas they cut spending along with taxes (no choice -- a state can't run a long-term deficit). The result has been such an unmitigated disaster that even many prominent Republicans are now supporting the Democratic candidate for governor.
There's absolutely a problem with relative tax burden shifts from the poor to the wealthy (which is what tax cuts disproportionately for the wealthy are), independently of overall spending/tax balance.
Whether deficit spending is a problem is a completely separate question (though I'd argue that the simple "deficit = bad" position is ludicrous, current spending in excess of revenue is good or bad based on what the spending is for and what the rationally expected outcome of the spending is; sure, interest has a cost, but there are benefits to weight against that cost if the spending is well-chosen.)
What about the comment is wrong to you? It made perfect sense to me, but if you've got another perspective then feel free to share it.
Does it mean that all drugs should be freely sold? I have no doubt that cannabis should be legal: not only is it relatively harmless, but it's very easy to grow. But what about other more addictive and dangerous drugs?
No. Ron's First Law still applies: all extreme positions are wrong.
If the argument is that everyone would just become drug addicts, I would argue that a hell of a lot of us already are drug addicts, just addicts to more socially acceptable drugs. And if reality can't compete with drugs, reality should step up its game.
I, for one, am looking forward to the renaissance that a more accepting attitude towards marijuana and psychedelics may herald. Both have the potential of transforming society, culture, and politics for the better.
Witness the great ferment of the psychedelic and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's.
I hope I may live long enough to see the fruit of the next psychedelic revolution.
Most people who can read don't do much noteworthy with their knowledge, but that doesn't mean the invention of writing and the printing press weren't revolutionary technologies that had the potential to transform the cultures and societies that came in contact with them, and radically increase the potential of those people who best made use of them.
Psychedelics hold this potential.
I think someone should dig them up, so the world can know its heroes by name.
Post-communist states did apologise for things they did decades before while being very different regimes. And that was a good thing; stubborness would be a disaster there, you can't move forward unless you repent.
If you think of it, Marujuana criminalization took a toll of human lives comparable to GULAG.
Basing your voting on whether your politicians are improving drug policy and/or have committed to do so on the future is totally reasonable. Basing your voting on your demand for an inherently empty ritual seems... not.
edited to add: Note that a Truth & Reconciliation type process is an entirely different thing - exposing and acknowledging the truth can be important and allow healing in ways that have no particular relationship to emotions fictionally experienced by the organization.
In that sense, speeches in senate are exactly that, even before laws are put in action. Sadly, my opinion about the credibility can't be written here in good faith.
*) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology#Etymology
You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder.
As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
>An etymology is not a word's "true meaning".
Anyway, it's still a good indicator.
>Given the wink, you may well know this
Indeed, I have no hope of convincing the MW editors here, or correcting what seems to be
>A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment.
It's not derived. It is the same word given a second meaning. Languages aren't separate entities, they are intertwined and defined by the speakers. In that sense you are right, a word should mean whatever it is intended to mean.
Still, it's a loanword and that implies a certain responsibility for the user, as with any loan. I don't see any argument for the necessity of transforming the meaning. I think the transformation is a mutation, coming from ignorant usage and that goes against my grain. Simplification might have merit, but I'm all for generalization.
>You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder.
What's the reverse of the euphemism treadmill? Apology is suffering it. A proper apology would explain all the reasons for the laws, which are by the way still in action. The focus shouldn't be on acknowledgment, but on correcting the understanding of the situation, to ease any confusion. To my understanding
>As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
Exactly.
Therefore words heavily rely on context and the context here was clear. The GGGP demanded an excuse, a justification or most importantly a clear explanation as to why the law has changed.
Obviously though, that couldn't be expected, because there is no clear situation, on the federal level it's still illegal, there was no change. That, I think, really requires an explanation. That is a double standard, don't you see a new-speak reference in this?
A joke really didn't work out if it has to be explained at length. Maybe, because secretly I was angry that my english isn't perfect and it's your fault ;)
>Apology:
>A regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure
) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/apology
they simply don't regret it so the whole discussion is besides the point
The 2009 apology by Gordon Brown made somewhat less sense. I don't have any strong opposition to well-intentioned nonsensical theatrics, but I think that it can lead to confusion and that keeping in mind that an organization is a different kind of thing than an individual is important.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Doughton
That said, Democrats are absolutely to blame, too, for the current state of our misguided drug war:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SGUJBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&ots=X6...
n.b. the author of the book linked to above is a close friend of mine.
It should be like tobacco in Australia where it cannot be advertised and is sold in plain packaging from behind a counter and cannot be displayed or promoted.
It should not be illegal but it is a health hazard and should be treated in the same terms as tobacco.
It's not a good thing that it is being sold as a "fun" product in cookies and food etc. Children should be discouraged from thinking it is a "fun" thing to do.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Conten...
Unfortunately, it's not that harmless. I know plenty of people that have been smoking cannabis daily from an early age and they are suffering because of it.
That being said, I'm entirely for its legalisation, but there should be some reasonable middle ground between harassing users and ignoring the risks.
So no, I don't think they should be authorised to sell their tobacco cigarettes with cannabis inside! Actually, I hope that legalisation will give the opportunity to inform people about this.
Yes, the vast majority of beer is "big beer" and that's fine. For those actually wanting a great beer experience, they can get it.
IMHO, we will see the same thing with cannabis. There is a lot of variety, and there are also some clear "can't miss" strains that will prove sufficient to the majority of potential users.
For those really interested in that variety, I suspect the micro-brew type model will end up working well.
If medical laws are left alone in enough places, we will see ongoing variety come out of those efforts.