A casino magnate is spending millions to fight legal marijuana in three states
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
Ending the 'war on drugs' would be an instant improvement in the lives of large numbers of Americans.
Having grown up in Mexico, reading Mexican press and seeing the endless amount of mass graves people are now finding through the country (e.g. [2]), I am fairly sure there are plenty of cases not counted in the official estimates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... . Note: If this makes you scared about planning to visit Mexico, please also remember it is a very large country, and different areas have different levels of violence. Fourth largest conflict in terms of total yearly deaths doesn't mean "it feels like Syria" on account of the population being 100 million. But that doesn't change the vastness of the cost in human lives...
He mentioned Tijuana for instance is already carved up amongst the various crime organizations. In his opinion it will not help Mexico though it perhaps will not hurt it either.
Personally I think the corruption goes from the top to the bottom and don't really see a quick fix. There would have to be real consequences to taking and giving bribes and other steps like that to re-enact the rule of law. I must say if I was a Mexican cop and told "take our silver or our lead", I'd probably take the bribe too so not really passing judgement. :-/
I have been downvoted all to hell whenever I suggest buying drugs is supporting these murderers.
Has the (thoroughly corrupt) PRI being back in power made the violence better or worse if you know?
Somewhat unrelated, but reinforcing your point about it being corrupt, we keep finding that president Peña Nieto owns quite a few houses he shouldn't be able to afford: [3], [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Iguala_mass_kidnapping
[2] http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2016/023....
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/18/mexico-preside...
[4] http://fusion.net/story/337255/jorge-ramos-another-scandal-p...
But we are talking about closing a big revenue stream for the cartels, almost certainly one of the two or three biggest they have, maybe even the largest, just by lifting the prohibition on marijuana. That's not only a step in the right direction, it is a rather big one. In the long term, treating drug addiction as a medical / consumer protection issue in the US rather than primarily a law enforcement one, will be a huge boon towards the future of both nations (and, again, other nations in the Americas that I am not excluding but for which I feel less qualified to speak about).
In short: it won't magically fix the problem, but I do believe it will likely reduce the number of deaths and put us in a path towards a solution.
[1] For the HN libertarian crowd, I don't mean solving income inequality in the sense that everybody should make the same regardless of economic output (although I do believe on a safety net), I mean changing a centuries long setup in which class mobility is near zero and strongly correlated with race, and where most large scale "entrepreneurship" in the country is based of political connections (see telecommunications and media industries in Mexico for example).
I have no particular insight into Adelson, but if his motives are business, it strikes me as unlikely that the best investment he could make with a few million dollars is in lobbying against marijuana legalization.
Alcohol use benefits casinos' bottom lines. Marijuana doesn't have the same wallet loosening effect.
The casinos are indirectly profiting from alcohol's prevalence, so it makes sense they'd defend it.
Perhaps Mr. Adelson needs to improve the quality (and price) of the restaurants in his casinos.
However, I think Tvert's point is well-taken. Los Vegas casino magnates aren't exactly in a position to preach about abstinence or vices.
But regardless, do we have literally any evidence that his a drug baron? That seems like a hell of a thing to put out there on the basis of "he opposes marijuana legalization."
The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.
They also had to pay $50 million dollars the previous year to the government as a settlement for money laundering, and has been in hot water for allegedly paying bribes to secure casinos in China[1]. Their business isn't exactly squeaky clean as it is.
[1]:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/in-filing-casino-...
I'm fully aware that the casinos used to be shoulder to shoulder with the mob, and have done plenty of shady things. I guess I just meant that it would be stupid to diversify so riskily - in movie terms, it'd be like a hacker starting a sideline in gun running.
If these are "donations" to non-profits, wouldn't this reduce one's tax liability.
(Not advocating for or against either side.)
...his supporters say the billionaire's crusade against marijuana should be seen as an individual decision rather than a business one. Adelson has had two sons who have struggled with drug addiction, one of whom died of an overdose in 2005. His wife, Miriam Adelson, is a doctor specializing in drug addiction.
“This is a case of someone who's been touched very deeply by drug abuse,” Kevin Sabet, of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in an email.
--
To an extent, all of us vote with our dollars. Avoid the Venetian and the Palazzo in Las Vegas and all Las Vegas Sands properties, unless you're the MIT blackjack team or otherwise an advantage player :)
Edit: Folks are reading my comment as "weed makes you too smart to gamble" instead of "weed changes your personality in ways that aren't conducive to gambling (relative to alcohol)."
I see no reason it shouldn't be legal, but let's not pretend that it's anything other than mind-altering junk food.
In my experience, occasional use of high quality weed has been very beneficial. It gives me a chance to step outside my normal routines of daily thinking and self talk for a few hours, and just look around and experience reality in a different way, which in turn reduces stress, improves mood, and makes music sound great and food taste amazing. The improved mood and stress reduction last long after the experience for me.
Of course getting high all the time probably is not good for you generally. Like any drug, it can easily be misused and overused. But that doesn't mean all experiences with it for everyone are meaningless.
Look, Marijuana is okay, but let us not fantasise about positive effects.
Either way, the "impulse buy" reflex is significantly stronger with alcohol than MJ, according to myself and the anecdotes of most everyone I've talked to.
I live in Puerto Rico. Ostensibly the case is that we are Catholic and religious. If you read a little more, you get that lots of people possess or buy or sell, but nobody wants to admit it. Then why is the government sustaining such a policy?
The truth is, there must be some people who are obliquely or directly benefiting the sale, distribution and consumption of illegal marijuana. That these same people lose money once marijuana (even medical marijuana) becomes legalized.
Smoking, sugar, alcohol, firearms, ... all these guys have lobbyists in DC or otherwise in order to get their way.
Furthermore, someone who is drunk and gambling, will likely make many dumb decisions that are profitable for the casino. It's a lot easier to get a gambler to continue gambling (and losing money) by feeding him more booze. Give him more weed and he'll just fall asleep.
I think there's some out of state money coming in on our Question 3 (background checks for person to person firearm transfers), in support of Yes. I don't think it has much of a chance of passing, most people I've talked to are sitting here thinking we have the 3rd lowest crime rate in the US, and we have bigger problems that actually need solving (opioid crisis, lack of white collar jobs, etc). Others are skeptical that it's a broadly drafted (some say poorly drafted) measure to pretext more searches.
Please refuse to use any of his properties for your vacations or conferences. Avoid using the Venetian, Palazzo, and Sands Expo.
Going on the amount of internet gambling that seems incapable of paying out to winners that doesn't seem a bad starting position.
It's only a couple of days since the UK Gov announced a wide reaching investigation of the systematic cheating of customers.
Given that the US is willing to arrest any executive from an online casino, they end up being based in places like Gibraltar. Now that its nearly impossible for sometime to take legal recourse against them, it makes it much more enticing to cheat, steal, etc.
Allows those casinos to be run in the US, and regulate and tax them, and suddenly, you have a lot of legitimate business vying for customers. You will also gain a lot in taxes, along with a bunch of the religious right claiming "you're ruining society".
That might be justifiable as an action against immoral or criminal practices (and those did happen), but it's sure not for the benefit of the players.
Very, very few, and pot legalization isn't one of them. Whether or not it makes sense depends entirely on what you value and what you think the result will be a decade or two from now.
Edit: now I see you were just dropping a reference. That makes your post even less tasteful in my eyes.
The national Republicans have been completely tarnished by their association with Trump. They are going to get absolutely trounced. NV is going to go blue. It's going to be the Dem's world for a long time now, especially once the Matriarch takes power.
>He also bought a newspaper to push his agenda
Jeff buying Washington Post, that was a smart powerful move. The Las Vegas purchase was a public debacle for him and now everyone knows its just his mouthpiece. Nobody of influence cares about that rag.
Billionaires throwing cash around is just like startup marketing, that is, throwing cash and seeing what sticks. Again, he's just playing at running the world, trying to throw his weight around like it matters. Legalization is going to happen and he's going to look like the asinine old fool he is.
Also, cuck has pretty explicit racist overtones. Please use a different term.
I'm reclaiming cuck.
Trump is receiving support in states that were traditionally blue, you should stop reading the HuffPost and go outside.
> It's going to be the Dem's world for a long time now, especially once the Matriarch takes power.
The Matriarch? Wow, the reality distortion field is strong with Clinton but I didn't know it was that strong.
She is so far from a motherly figure that she makes Thatcher look positively saintly. Hillary may dream of being America's Golda Meir but she is no Golda Meir.
> Jeff buying Washington Post, that was a smart powerful move.
Washington Post, colloquially referred to as Washington Compost? A powerful move? Get real, WaPo has sacrificed editorial integrity to turn into a rag that peddles tripe.
> Billionaires throwing cash around is just like startup marketing, that is, throwing cash and seeing what sticks.
It's aspirations of megalomania, hardly spitballing. You don't do what he's doing just to fulfill a curiosity.
I work in public policy running massive computations on polling data. Our firm has a greater than 95% percent successful prediction rating with regards to policy measures and ballot initiatives. Two math PhDs, one of whom is a Fields Medalist, worked on the models we run. I know more about what's going on than you do.
>She is so far from a motherly figure that she makes Thatcher look positively saintly. Hillary may dream of being America's Golda Meir but she is no Golda Meir.
Matriarch doesn't mean "motherly" in the sense of caring or compassion. It literally means the female head of a family or tribe.
>Washington Post, colloquially referred to as Washington Compost? A powerful move? Get real, WaPo has sacrificed editorial integrity to turn into a rag that peddles tripe.
And in the process influences literally millions. It has higher page views and click throughs than the New York Times. It broke the story on Trump's groping.
>It's aspirations of megalomania
Exactly, aspirations. Hence my original comment.
The policy to ban marijuana for everyone is the wrong answer because it clearly doesn't solve the problem of the chronic (ab)user in the first place. The better solution is to redirect the money spent fighting the 'drug war' toward positive things like rehab programs and therapy. You will always have a subset of humans who abuse whatever kind of drugs they can get, you can't stop this. So why punish everyone else who can use drugs in a responsible manner?
Both of those are as bad and in many cases worse than cannabis and yet use/possession of the one is a crime and the others merely tax revenues. (Unless you're underage, then selling to you is the crime.)
I don't see how we can make all drugs legal and just say "Hey, if you want to ruin your life with heroin then go for it" because then we have people being violent, robbing, etc. That is, the cost of enforcing is worth it, in a big way.
But with pot, the cost of enforcement is very high, particularly in people's lives disrupted, for a societal cost that is small. It seems to me, even as a non-user, that there are a great number of people who use at least occasionally, and attempting enforcement is sweeping back the tide.
Basically, when everybody does it, then we have effectively decided that it is a societal norm.
The problem is with the "ruin your life" part, not the "heroin" part. If we really want government to get involved, they should get involved when people's lives are being ruined, not when someone is merely making, distributing, or using a substance.
Weed may ruin your social life and career but booze can literally kill you and people around you.
It still boils down to what rights the government has to legislate something like this based on poor choices of a few individuals.
Besides lets not pretend there's any reason its illegal any more except for pharma, booze, casinos and probably cigarette mfgers
That's probably true, but it's not really relevant. There are downsides to making something illegal, so the question really is whether the harm the pot does is greater than the harm of criminalization.
At this point it's difficult for me to see that balance coming down on the side of prohibition.