Gmail Creator Joins Facebook Co-Founder, Donates 100K To Legalize Marijuana | Hacker News Reader

Gmail Creator Joins Facebook Co-Founder, Donates 100K To Legalize Marijuana

techcrunch.com

168 pointsMistone95 comments

Damn, I really hope Prop 19 passes. I'm not even American, but a passage would mark the start of the end of the dreadful war on marijuana around the world. Other states would follow, then Latin America (the former Mexican President said "May God let it pass" about Prop 19), countries in Europe (Netherlands, Spain, Denmark) and slowly it would be legalized around the world. Defeat would be a major setback.

I urge all Californians who're reading this to do their absolute best to make it pass in these last vital days. Join the phone banks, make sure all your friends are voting, campaign at universities. It could make a large difference, larger than you probably think.

This appears to be roughly how prohibition against alcohol ended in the US: first with essentially universal defiance; then with a popular wink-wink-nod-nod "medical alcohol" exemption of sketchy legality; then with faultering enforcement and inconsistent and imperfect legal codes... and finally repeal. (Of course, for MJ the situation should be simpler because no amendment is needed to the US Constitution to end prohibition... merely an act of Congress.)

Pot was almost legal in Netherlands since 70s, yet very few countries followed suit. What makes California so special that it will make the end of cannabis prohibition viral? I'm highly skeptical.

The feeling about pot has changed a lot in the last 15 years, not just in the US ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support... ), but in the rest of the world well. A ton of countries have decriminalized marijuana and other drugs, people are realizing that marijuana isn't the drug of hell it was pitched as and that the war against it has failed.

I think it has a lot to do with the internet/information age. Just a couple of years ago the governments could say whatever they wanted and very few people would question their "facts". Now everybody with access to the internet can research the issue themselves.

California is the 6th largest economy in the world, borders with Mexico, and is a pretty large consumer of Marijuana, perhaps one of the world's largest but I have no data on the latter.

California legalizing Marijuana for private consumption would deal a strong blow to the cartels. If over several years no ill effects seem to result ("seem" is important, unfortunately) other states, such as Massachusetts, may follow suit.

The semi-legalization in the Netherlands and the full legalization in Portugal set good examples, but few places in the world are as prominent as California.

They de-criminalized it, The Netherlands never 'really' legalized production. The only legal pot growing is done for medicinal cannabis, which is a very marginal market compared to the coffeeshops. The reason was amongst others, that The Netherlands were bound by international treaties to fully legalize and tax it.

Prop 19, legalizes the entire supply-chain, which makes it possible to build a legal business on weed. The difference is, that the 'captains of industry' will become part of the establishment, in a while traditional businessmen might even take over. It could be that if California goes well, the same players who were in, let's say, cigarette-companies will step up. They have been thinking about this. Philip morris pantented the brand 'Marley' in France: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-law-is-a-dope-if...

Tobacco sales would go through the roof over night if it started shipping with MJ in it. I've never been able to get a good high off of a bong or pipe, but mix it with tobacco and I'm set. The interesting thing is that tobacco has no effect on me at all, I've smoked cigarettes and nothing, I often smoke a cigarillo when I'm social drinking with friends who do smoke but my body doesn't seem to get a response.

My parents both never smoked, my paternal grand parents didn't smoke (AFAIK) and my maternal grandfather liked the occasional pipe (literally occasional, I never even knew as a child). As far as investigation has gone in my family, no one smokes. Aunts, uncles, cousins, no one.

However virtually everyone in my wife's family smokes, my wife doesn't, but if she does have a social smoke I know she struggles with not continuing. The few members of her family who don't smoke have quit.

The bizarreness here is that my wife's family tried strongly to stop their children smoking, but my parents didn't try at all. They found out I'd bought a pack of cigarettes one time, but I didn't get them taken off me, I didn't get a lecture, I got nothing. They simply assumed they weren't for me, and they genuinely weren't, my friend asked me to pick them up for when we went out drinking.

"merely" an act of congress? Regarding a policy that's so easy to demagogue with and involves so many social dog whistles? You're dreaming :)

One thing that makes marijuana more complex is that, unlike was the case with alcohol, the prohibition is written into international treaties. Countries could just ignore or withdraw from them, or try to get them modified, but so far none seem to be willing to. Treaty obligations relating to banning marijuana trafficking are one thing that's complicated the Dutch experiment with decriminalization, and led to absurd situations, where coffee-shops selling pot to customers is tolerated, but that pot cannot legally come from anywhere (they cannot grow it, cannot buy it in wholesale quantities, etc.).

The reason other countries won't flout the UN Single Convention and other international treaties is...the US. They don't want to be branded outlaws by the US, with potential sanctions, banking restrictions, etc.

Sort of like the ancient Klingon proverb: "only Nixon could go to China", only the US can legalize (vs. merely decriminalize) drugs.

Actually the "medical alcohol" exemption was present in the initial legislation and preceded universal defiance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act for more.

It's also more complicated because medical marijuana is actually legit.

It's a shame how many good people have had their lives ruined because of our "war on drugs". When prop 19 passes, I hope they pardon some of the people in jail, especially people who have never had a record, besides their pot offense

1) Marijuana is an infraction today in California. You can't go to jail for possession.

2) I'd be amazed to find someone in California who's life is actively being ruined due to a possession offense. Any conviction older than 2 years cannot be asked about for employment purposes.

1. Not true. If you're possessing too much, you're considered a dealer.

2. If you get caught with weed you'll lose your college grant and loans, essentially making it impossible for a lot of great, hard working people, to get a college degree just because they're caught with some weed. Taking away the right to higher education just because of a small possession case is downright inhumane. Not even rapers and murders lose their college grants and loans.

On #2, will the law change this? I was aware that the grants are controlled by federal law (where marijuana would still be illegal)

Correct, but I clearly did not say for possession. I personally know a grower who had his house rated, and was sent to jail for 6 years. Reason: he had too many plants.

Good people should not go to jail for this, aftermath: he lost his house in a sheriff's sale, his kid was taken away. I'm sure you can find 100 of cases where peoples lives were ruined in their own way, not necessarily yours.

The 'war on drugs' has had a lot of bad side effects. Look up the stories sometime of people who were stopped by the police and happen to have a decent amount of cash on them that gets confiscated because clearly it's drug money.

Won't anyone think of the poor Canadians in the Kootenays? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/10/27/b...

From everything I have read recently it is going downhill. I agree that it should be medically legal. I do not agree that it should be legal for general consumption.

If you're not trolling I'd love to hear why. I've yet to hear a cogent reason that supports your opinion.

Are there any hackers out there that like to code stoned? My marijuana-days never really overlapped with my coding days, but I can't imagine that would be a very good combo. I'm all for legalization tho I no longer partake -- I'm just wondering if it's a regular part of the lifestyle of many successful hackers...

Certainly not me, but a little birdie whispered in my ear that it makes writing boring boilerplate/glue/test code a lot more tolerable.

a carefully regulated light buzz of alcohol is sublime for that.

I find it isn't as terrible as you'd expect if you're caffeinated at the same time. I think it can be genuinely helpful while initially thinking them out certain things on paper. When I'm actually writing code it sometimes causes me to lose sight of the big picture and to spent forever "perfecting" a function or two. Fun, though not overwhelmingly productive.

I wouldn't recommend doing most of your coding high, but if you do so every now and then it might help you think about things in a different way.

Yeah good point on the caffeine.

I started taking a Guarana supplement with my morning vitamins; guarana is similar to coffee beans but has a higher concentration of caffeine. So far I've been amazed by how it's working.

I've tried being completely sober. ;o)

coffee + weed = the hippie speedball

It's funny but I'm hesitant to answer this truthfully.

I'm not sure if that's because I have aspirations to submit to YC at some point and wonder how PG might view this (and whether it would affect any decision making one way or another). Or if it's just the general concern with unnecessarily putting myself 'out there' somewhat publicly.

So yes, I do smoke and code. I don't know if I would say I'm 'stoned' though; I find that if I have just a wee bit I'm more focused and on point. It's similar to when I play music; not for the 'creative release' often claimed (though seldom experienced by me), but rather for this deep-focus aspect.

Pot's nothing. PG admits to using Lisp while working on his startup. If that's not a controversial productivity hack, I don't know what is.

We certainly don't care, as long as you make things people want.

(And if you don't make things people want, then I imagine it's that that PG will care about; he still won't care about the pot smoking.)

As a person who believes strongly in personal freedoms, thank you for saying this Paul.

If someone chooses to consume a drug of their choosing and still create in a way that fulfills them and their customers -- it is a grave injustice to shackle someone, wag a finger and tell them no. You inspire on many fronts.

I'm glad to see this comment. It's results and behavior that matter, not chemicals in your urine. If only employers would realize this...

I don't mean to sound glib, but I'd think you would -- less for the social stigma or potential for doing something idiotic while stoned, but if I were about to invest a significant amount of money in a company, I think I'd consider 'probability of a founder going to jail' as something that mattered.

The odds of going to jail in California just for possession of a small amount of marijuana are somewhat lower than the likelihood of going to jail for speeding. As long as the founder is not dealing, I don't see why you'd worry. Particularly since many Californians use it legally.

I suppose that matters if the team plans to move to / stay in or is already in California. I personally don't have any opposition to it, but outside of California, it's much less forgiven by the legal authorities.

It's pretty forgiven across the board these days. There are states / areas in states where it is absolutely not, but the majority of law enforcement members, in the majority of areas, don't give a shit about some kid cheefing away on a spliff while typing a lot, or playing music, or whatever it is they like to do.

Like with alcohol it always depends on the person. Some people can have a drink or 2 and think nothing of it. While others can't drink without going to black out drunk.

I look at pot and people the same way. I've had friends who smoked and were the laziest people you ever met. They were lazy pre-pot and only became lazier. I've had other friends who smoke and they became super successful, quality people.

A girl I dated in college occasionally smoked with her sister. I would give them grief about it, but turns out in HS they smoked every day with the eventually valedictorian of their school. Oh, and they both finished college with 4.0s in finance.

I don't smoke, but I know a lot of people find it aids their creativity and ability to focus (in reasonable doses). Those are useful traits for hackers, at least in some tasks. (More designy things would show greater improvement than the mathy parts of the job.)

I'm not a coder; but I had a friend who would often code high or drunk. And in a very competitive CS program; he was very very good.

About the drunk part, that Ballmer peak XKCD comic?

I've found it to be more or less true for mental tasks. When I (and some classmates) have been lightly buzzed, we seem to work better (in certain respects). For example, when solving physics problems, we become much better/faster at coming up with solutions (granted, we'll probably end up making more calculation errors).

This led me to doing all my assignments first buzzed, and then recopying them out and rechecking the calculations (my writing is horrible, the recopying was required anyways) later when sober.

Of course, when finals rolled around, I had to spend 3 solids days practicing physics while sober again. It was weird.

My favorite reply to a HN thread (titled "What are your productivity hacks") was "The right mix of ganja and caffeine"

I have never used marijuana and never intend to. But things I wouldn't do myself shouldn't necessarily be illegal.

Of course! I've been smoking cannabis since I was 16, but now, I only use it when I do front end work (weekends). It allows me to have laser focus for the task at hand, and allows me to forgot about the unimportant things that also need done during the weekend: laundry, cleaning the apt, dishes, etc.

"I'm just wondering if it's a regular part of the lifestyle of many successful hackers"

I think it does not matter if you're a "successful" hacker or not, it matters if you understand how it effects you and your work, successful or not. I know some that cannot work without it, but I also know some that cannot think straight while stone

In the mid 90s I lived with an MIT educated hacker who was our programming team lead. We worked on a Windows multi-protocol email client that had back ends that talked to AOL, CompuServe, PRODIGY, MCI, etc. My roommate coded nearly all of the back ends, and was responsible for much of the design and architecture of the program, which was for us a fairly big success.

Every morning before work, he'd make a pot of the nastiest, strongest coffee you could imagine, pour himself a cup, and drink it with his morning bong hits. He'd then drive myself and our other roommate to work in his beat up Volvo station wagon. Once he got to work he'd shut himself in his office, crank up his stereo (no headphones) and start reading his email.

My hero.

Where is he now?

He moved back to Boston and I lost touch with him. Last I heard he got married, settled down and is still writing code.

Well, if I get too high, I find it difficult, but if I'm just a little high, I find it beneficial in that it helps me focus and sometimes helps creativity. I'm currently employed and don't get high on the job, but I code on my side projects high pretty often. But I don't generally get high with the intentions of coding. Usually it's just that I happen to be high and just want to code and make progress on my projects. Often times it's not until I've sobered up a little (but not completely) before I start coding, though.

I didn't used to do this when I was younger (I'm 32 now). In college I found that while I could do homework high, it usually resulted in me correcting a bunch of errors the next day, so I reserved pot (and alcohol) for when I was finished with my work. But these days I'm so compelled to work on side projects that having used pot (and sometimes alcohol) earlier in the evening just doesn't stop me from putting in a few hours before bed time.

As a side note: I gave up regular usage of caffeine after I got out of college. I found I no longer needed it once I was able to get 7-8 hours of sleep every night instead of 4. But I very occasionally have caffeine and yes, as others have said, pot + caffiene is a good combo.

I find it good for exploratory programming, fiddling around with finding a solution to a difficult problem and coming up with new ideas.

There are many coding tasks it's not that great for for me, primarily those that make heavy use of longer-than-short-term memory :P

This just could've been about Python or some other dynamic language.

And? It wasn't. I find marijuana to be a useful tool, for the above types of coding, in high-level, low-level, dynamically or statically typed, or whatever languages. It encourages creative and lateral thinking.

I already voted in favore of Prop 19 via postal ballot. The way that the American public has been hoodwinked going on a century about the real reasons for marijuana prohibition is really a travesty. Even most of the comments in this thread are focused on the personal freedom aspect; yet the real story of cannabis prohibition is all economic.

Nowadays it's prison guard unions and law enforcement that lobby heavily against legalization, but originally it was chemical and other industrial companies that drove the prohibition effort simply because it undercut their markets both on production (pesticides, fertilizers) and utility (synthetic materials). Of course the drug companies lobby against legalization of medical marijuana for parallel reasoning today (marijuana has fewer side effects than most drugs), but I find it deliciously ironic that in this day and age when environmental concerns are rising and hemp is a no-brainer solution for so many obvious problems, that the very population that was demonized in a side-channel PR effort to turn the public against "marijuana" (the Mexican term being used in English propoganda for its sinister connotation), has now become such a political force that they're actually going to get cannabis legalized for drug use purposes first, without any need to dip into the wealth of undeniable industrial uses of hemp; prohibited by proxy in a true crime against humanity.

I hope this is not an "out of context query", but why/how does money affect creation of laws in the US?

There is a referendum on the California ballot where the voting population will get to determine whether or not to legalize marijuana. The money that gets donated can be used for advertising, which may be effective in this case.

Just like products, referendums don't market themselves.

This might be useful to read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

That's not actually really relevant to this particular case, which is a state ballot measure not a national campaign for office.

Very much relevant. That ruling meant among other things that political spending amounts cannot be limited.

It's far more complex than that. Are you talking about political spending by campaigns or by independent groups? By PACs or by corporations/unions? Within 60 days of an election (or 30 days of a primary) or not? Etc.

In this case, that's true.

But his/her question was: "but why/how does money affect creation of laws in the US?"

The ruling allowed corporations to fund candidates in any candidate election. These candidates then have a better chance of winning (though certainly not guaranteed) through sources of funding that they hadn't had before. By influencing who gets elected, corporations have a better chance of influencing which bills are created and passed.

NPR had an excellent segment on this, this morning.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1308913...

Doesn't this seem kind of late? Election is next Tuesday.

They just started running ads this week. For issues like this you don't want to start too soon and give the opposition a chance to raise money, produce ads, etc.

I was thinking the same thing. This would have made a lot bigger impact if he'd donated the money 3 months ago. Now the most it can be used for is some last-minute TV ads.

Techcrunch should add attributions to their images!

Personally I hate marijuana and everybody who uses it. I openly refuse to have anything to do with people who do.

We're born with few enough brain cells as it is, why would you want to kill more of 'em?

If Prop 19 passes I'll be looking to leave California ASAP, because there's nothing that makes me angrier than smelling pot smoke.

Do you also hate people who voluntarily kill their own brain cells using other means, or in any other ways damage their own body ?

There's no argument for marijuana prohibition that does not also apply to alcohol prohibition, and we all know how that turned out. We're wasting billions of taxpayer dollars to prosecute what is at worst a poor personal health decision.

Alcohol has many other disadvantages which are, IMO, worse than just the harm to personal health, though these normally only surface when overused. Can't say the same about marijuana though, and I agree with you about that.

I'm behind this statement. As another wise man once said, we could also take the warning labels off everything and let our problems solve themselves.

That's quite the jump. If you hadn't stated elsewhere that you don't consume cannabis, I would say that you are high.

People use and abuse drugs. Get over it. If you actually do care about the impact of drugs on other people you should be focusing on making sure that any harm from doing so is minimized by:

a. Creating safe markets for the production, distribution, and consumption of all drugs b. Providing education and health resources to make sure that users of drugs can make informed choices and get help when needed.

Wow, this place really does not like sarcasm.

There's nothing for me to get over. I can't stop people from using drugs.

However, oversimplified statements made to dazzle, like yours, really tick me. There are many kinds and definitions of a drug, depending on whether you're a pharmacologist, a lawyer, a government, an addict, or just your average simpleton. There's not a single precise definition. I've already stated elsewhere in this thread that people need to jump off the legalization/damnation bandwagons and have some concrete fucking clue about what they're talking about.

Creating safe markets for all drugs? We haven't even been able to do that for pharmaceuticals! How do you suggest we proceed with recreational drugs? Where are consumers supposed to buy it from? What about existing supply-chains? Who oversees them all? What about derivatives? How will you figure out what is actually dangerous? Take a second and read Steve Yegge [1]; I'm sure you already have the answers but maybe he has a better chance of making you think.

I don't know where you come from, but where I live drug users can both make an informed decision before using (being critical thinking beings and all that shit), as well as get guidance and support after actually being addicted. It doesn't help. Sure, educating people about recreational drugs is key, but we don't even know half of what drugs are capable of when it comes to psychotropics. We are missing fundamental links between substance and behaviour, what are we supposed to tell our kids?

Anyway, I might have to put sarcasm tags in the last post, because being humorous or sarcastic really doesn't reach people here. I believe that comments have in fact degraded into YouTube comments, where there is no limit to how idiotic a statement will be taken seriously. And here's me, falling victim to that same behaviour.

[1] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...

Do you follow the same policies about people who have a glass of wine with dinner? That kills brain cells.

Do you hate everyone who drinks coffee? Caffeine is actually chemically addictive and can kill you if you overdose, whereas pot cannot kill you no matter how much you have.

How about Barack Obama? He's admitted to smoking pot. Do you hate him because of that fact? Or Carl Sagan, one of the 20th century's most loved scientists? He was an avid pot smoker as well.

The best athlete in the world, Michael Phelps, also smokes pot. Do you hate him?

Your opinions of hate are horrible. Please re-think how you feel about marijuana and maybe read some science about the drug. It's much less damaging than alcohol.

Anyone who quote "hate"s people for smoking pot definitely hates Barack Obama.

Drinking doesn't force others to consume the drink.

Smoking is something that you're forcing those around you to partake in with you. It's antisocial.

pretty sure there are ways to consume marijuana or thc without disturbing others.

though your argument could be applied to cigarettes, and those aren't illegal...

Smoking has been banned in indoor public spaces in many a country [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans

Marijuana and smoke are not tied together. Many people bake brownies. Some people smoke alone, so no others are affected. Vaporizers eliminate the smoke altogether.

It's not antisocial. In fact, it's one of the most social activities humanity has ever come across.

Police use the word antisocial here to when referring to it. I think they are using it in a completely different context though to how we normally use to word though.

More to do with out of line with how wider society expects people to behave or something similar.

In terms of the way we mostly use the word, yes it is a very social thing in bringing people together and having them interact.

Putting people in cages can border on anti-social.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

> Caffeine is actually chemically addictive and can kill you if you overdose, whereas pot cannot kill you no matter how much you have.

Wait, I thought THC could kill you, except you are unable to smoke enough to reach toxic limits. Coffee is weak enough I can't imagine I could consume enough to give myself Caffeine poisoning before I got water poisoning.

If you're talking about pure caffeine, make sure you compare it to pure THC.

THC can kill you in the same sense that water or any other non-toxic substance can[1], if you consume enough of it it'll saturate your body and interrupt your vital functions.

But to do that you need to consume much more than any person would do naturally while smoking or eating it. E.g. you'd have to inject a 2-3 liters of it or dissolved in a saline solution. Or smoke it so heavily that it starts interrupting your oxygen supply, which is what they did in the "weed kills monkey braincells" experiment).

1. Actually water is much more practically dangerous. Many people have died from water toxicity.

I fully understand that; my point is, isn't caffeine pretty much the same deal? Caffeine pills excepted, as there are no THC pills to compare with.

Alcohol doesn't kill brain cells. It's a myth.

Also, while I disapprove of marijuana abuse (I've used twice, never felt like it could benefit me in any way), I would like all movements to legalize marijuana to wait until there's

a) a comprehensive study (or studies) on the triggers of bad reactions to THC (anxiety, paranoid thought etc.) which to the best of my knowledge doesn't exist so far, as well as to its link with T-cell function impairment

b) at least one reliable way of acquiring marijuana which is properly grown and

c) ending once and for all the misinformation about marijuana, THC, and their effects and alleged links to drug addiction, and so forth.

Marijuana does not kill brain cells, and humans are not exactly running short on them either.

In fact generally alcohol doesn't kill brain cells either http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/nervous-s...

edit: agreed, Cannabis does not kill brain cells, our body actually makes it's own version of thc.

excerpt from Botany of Desire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpH9C8-y708&feature=playe...

This is actually a really fascinating topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannabinoid_system

Endocannabinoids are fat-soluble chemicals used for local signaling, most notably retrograde signaling among neurons: they can send signals backwards. They're hydrophobic, diffusing well through cell membranes but not traveling well in water. This makes them useful for sending very short-distance signals.

You can disagree with legalizing marijuana, and even hate the drug, but don't hate the people who use it.

I personally have never used marijuana, nor ever intend to do so, but I don't hate the people who use it because I don't who they are, or why they use marijuana. The ones who do (that I have heard of) use marijuana for medical purposes.

Say instead that you dislike (or don't approve of) the abuse of marijuana.

You must really dislike football players, boxers, and others who engage in sports that cause repetitive light trauma to the head. They lose way more brain cells that way.

I think these opinions to have a lot to do with how the public is primed to behave by being exposed to things like TV where a censored message is portrayed and Football is an accepted and popular game and the drugs message is most anti all drugs reguardless of what the individuals giving the message think.

So you hate my girlfriend, who has multiple sclerosis and the only thing that makes her feel better when she's having a flare-up is marijuana? Often times she doesn't want to be high, but does it anyway because it's the only thing that works.

We'll be looking to move to California if this passes. Good to know there will be people leaving to make room for us...

What in the world are you doing in California if you hate the smell of pot smoke?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com