Hacker News Reader

Comment by philk | Hacker News Reader

Well this is a rather discouraging result.

I've never understood why people want to lose tax revenue and provide a massive source of revenue to criminals when marijuana is going to be sold regardless.

View on HN

I assume by people you mean people who regularly vote. The problem with Prop 19 and other similar measures is not that they don't have support, it's that their base of support by and large doesn't vote (at least until they grow up and realize you don't get anything through apathy).

Doesn't that in-of-itself say something about the legalization.

I see that things like this fail not because people are against pot, but because everyone has the same feeling, "it's fine, just not in my back yard".

Not only do the supporters not vote, but they have very little political power nor do they provide monetary support.

As a believer in tax and regulate, I can tell you why I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law. Go ahead and read the wikipedia about it or any of the articles in the major california papers. Many say the same thing: legalization is inevitable, but this isn't the way to do it. It went too far on protecting pot (such as disallowing local ordnances from prohibiting outdoor grows.) Also, it allowed too many varying tax situations. Essentially, passing it would be empowering bad governance.

Unfortunately, voting against prop 19 as a bad law isn't differentiable from voting against prop 19 as a proponent of prohibition.

When legalization passes, it will have to satisfy people's NIMBY impulses while protecting considerate adult consumers.

The article on Wikipedia takes no position on the proposition.

In fact, it makes it sound better than, say, the newspapers do.

Wikipedia explains its composite parts in a thorough and neutral-ish way, the newspapers make an argument against it based on the probably outcomes of its policies. I expected that the reader of wikipedia would also use its details to conclude that it is untenable; I apologize for the implication that wikipedia also spelled out why it is bad law =/

That's a horrible reason.

No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever change.

I find it very disheartening that some of the very people who want this change the most refused to vote for a 90% solution in the hopes that someone will come along with a 100% solution tomorrow. With this setback, the issue won't come up again for many years, and even when it does it STILL won't be perfect.

I just hope that in 10 years when it comes up again, people won't be going "I voted no because it's not perfect" and setting the process back ANOTHER 10 years.

> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction.

Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it.

In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.

I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?

My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).

Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.

> Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects

Because as well as the bad effects, the law might also have good effects, i.e. be a net improvement. Most policy proposals have some potential bad side effects -- if they didn't, people would already be doing them.

So if a policy appears to be net-positive, it is probably worth supporting.

> rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't?

If a referendum fails, it may make it less likely that a better designed law will come along later. This is IMO the case for the referendum on electoral reform that will be held in the UK next May -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote...

Just because Paul Buchheit says it's a horrible reason doesn't make it actually a horrible reason.

In reality, the particulars of the law matter, a lot. And, in particular, this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence, and almost certainly would have caused hundreds of employers to end up in frivolous lawsuits. It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks.

The second-order effects were even worse; companies in California are entangled in a web of business relationships that require drug-free workplaces --- FedGov is the most obvious example, but every investment bank in the world has a similar requirement --- all of which would have been thrown into chaos by this measure.

And why? To keep people from getting fired for something that currently gets people incarcerated. A step in the right direction is exactly what this measure wasn't.

The campaign for legalization could have written a minimalist bill. They could have waited 2 years for a more favorable election cycle. They did neither, choosing instead to walk into a buzzsaw. Don't blame the bill's opponents for this incompetence.

"this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence"

Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.

Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol:

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-10...

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#...

Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level. You can argue about any of these issues. But do you really think driving stoned is a winning political issue? And while tens of thousands of people are imprisoned over marijuana, isn't it relevant that it's a losing argument?

No, that issue is solved. It's called a trial.

My point is simply this: now you're trying to convince sensible people of two things they've been trained not to believe. First, that something that has been a controlled substance for decades should be open to commerce in California, and second, that the basis of our drunk driving laws are unsound and should be in effect repealed starting with that controlled substance.

A campaign to repeal blood alcohol limits would almost certainly fail in every US state, so its attachment to this bill seems like a horrible overreach.

> Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol

Source? I've seen stoned people that couldn't stand up, much less drive.

Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc. There are several researchers who have found that it's so safe that in double blind studies they couldn't tell the difference between the sober group and the stoned group, i.e. they found zero harm at all. The ones who do find some impairing effects say they are minimal.

I didn't down vote you, sorry that happened.

> Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc.

The problem I have with what you are stating is that you hand wave over "normal amounts". What is a normal amount. I've seen one toke of weed be enough to lay someone out for a half hour, I haven't seen that from one sip of a beer.

> "It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks."

Is that unlike the open question of whether employers have to allow employees to have a martini or two at lunch?

No, because unless you can get a medical professional to write you up as an alcoholic (in which case the ADA applies), you can be fired simply for handling a martini at lunch. That isn't an open question. Employment in California is at will, excepting:

* discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin

* discrimination over disabilities covered by the ADA (diagnosed drug and alcohol addiction notably included)

* termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place.

Perverse as this sounds to me, you can in California be fired over a bad haircut, but cannot be fired for marching in a Nazi parade.

> "termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place."

What I mean to ask is: doesn't that statement right there cover any responsible person who might want a puff or drink during the work day? I'm not talking about having a martini or a smoke at your desk or on the loading dock.

I just don't understand

1: why anyone would be concerned that the law might allow someone to show up with marijuana in their system at a non-impairment level, when they might already show up with alcohol in their system at a non-impairment level.

2: why a law that explicitly re-iterates that you can't be fired for engaging in a particular lawful activity outside the workplace is viewed as a flaw, when the general case of any lawful activity is already law.

Where to begin...

1. Employment in the US is (for the most part) at-will. Employers can fire you for having a bad haircut. This is a good thing: it lowers the barriers to starting new companies and taking on new employees.

2. In virtually every situation in which people are given protections beyond "at-will", the harms have overwhelmed the benefits (see: teachers, auto workers, municipal employees).

3. The very few exceptions to this practice mostly involve unconscionable discrimination: specifically and literally, race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?

4. To many employers, "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued". Termination is already a minefield simply because of racial and gender politics. I'd argue that ending racial and gender discrimination makes the hazards worth it, but even as a legalization advocate I can't argue that ending pot discrimination is worth a dime to society.

5. It gets worse because in addition to the fact that every other state criminalized cannabis, huge companies operating out of those states (notable examples: the federal government, almost every major bank) have drug-free work policies that would overnight have become unlawful in CA.

6. California's "lawful activity outside the workplace" thing appears to be a CA quirk.

7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy.

8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism. Let's not pretend that particular law was well-thought-out.

I can bring this discussion back to earth real quickly though. The problem is simply this: we're having a huge and tangled discussion involving discrimination, at-will employment, freedom of association, contract law, and so on. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are imprisoned because of marijuana criminalization. Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act".

> "1. At-will" For the most part, this is true. However, it is and has been abused and has its existing exemptions for very good reason. Protecting an employer's right to punish people for lawful activity they engage in outside of the workplace, that has no impact on how they perform their job, does not seem like a very good reason.

> "2. harms from exceptions have overwhelmed the benefits" You're conflating union contracts with legal protections. Also, we shouldn't overlook the ways in which employers would use their at-will rights to control employee voting, spending (company store) and living (company housing). Beneficial protections for employees from the at-will rights of employers go beyond the handful of explicit protected classes.

> "3. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?" No more than we should add "alcohol drinker". But it absolutely shouldn't be a protected right to fire people for engaging in lawful behavior that occurs outside the workplace and has no impact on their job performance.

> "4. "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued"." Termination is pretty clean and easy so long as you document your decisions.

> "5. Existing policies unlawful" I believe the correct interpretation there is the specific sections would be rendered invalid/unenforceable and would need to be amended. I don't see it as such a huge deal. The very organizations that would experience a large cost in this endeavor are overwhelmingly the ones who have annual updates anyway.

> "6. CA quirk." But we're only talking about California. It's nonsensical to argue based on interstate applicability of a proposed State law.

> "7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy." Or it may not. Or firing people based on lawfully smoking weed might be seen as an invasion of privacy.

> "8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism." You don't think freedom to political speech on your own time is a more important and sacred right than freedom of expression via appearance in the workplace?

> "Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act"." I think the jury's out on how much of the opposition to this bill had to do with marijuana anti-discrimination.

I'll absolutely agree that it was bad strategy, particularly as the right seems to already be protected. I'm just not convinced that a critical reading of the proposal would sway voters away from it for its inclusion.

Arguments against the anti-discrimination sections were overwhelmingly emotional arguments. Those arguments, and those swayed by them, have never needed a rational basis. If it wasn't "they'll drive high" it would've been "they'll babysit high" or "the welfare queen will be high on your dime" or some similar scare-scenario.

Concerns about having to choose between retaining a business relationship with your largest client who mandates a drug-free workplace and a rash of frivolous lawsuits is simply not an "overwhelmingly emotional argument".

I agree with something like healthcare or financial reform, but not here.

If we have a crappy law and it creates a bunch of talking points for the opposition, that is worse than no law. The CA law will be open for repeal and other states will be less likely to pass the law.

If CA passed a good law, had a good result over the next 10 years, proponents elsewhere can point to CA as a model example of what will happen.

Any law to legalize pot has to 1) Increase tax revenue 2) Reduce crime related to drugs (especially violent crime) 3) Effectively penalize those that endager others 4) Effectively regulate the industry so that the supply is safe

I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law

Given that any wikipedia article (should be) NPV, I was wondering if you could elaborate why you thought it was a bad law. You only really said:

It went too far on protecting pot and it allowed too many varying tax situations

Would you care to elaborate as these just raise more questions for me. Thanks!

From the San Jose "Mercury News": Proposition 19 fails on that front. Instead of statewide rules, regulation is left to individual cities and counties. That's right. Every one of California's 478 cities and 58 counties would be allowed, but not required, to establish its own laws on how marijuana can be grown, sold, taxed and used. On some issues, local control makes sense, but this isn't one of them.

This article from the sacramento bee goes into more detail: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/19/3038161/endorsements-2010-p...

A single statewide set of rules (like we have for alcohol,) and a clear tax proposal would go a long way.

This explains why the California Cannabis Association ( a group that defends the medical dispensaries ) is against it -- but you may want to consider their possibly perverse profit motive, as well.

One complicating factor is that there isn't a simple equivalent to the Blood Alcohol Content standard for inebriation -- this would help for things like driving and intoxication at work.

Do we actually have a single statewide set of rules for alcohol? I thought SF was trying to pass an initiative that raise alcohol distribution taxes within the city.

It makes sense in the context of other policy such as the body scanners at airports that were talked about here recently. It seems all about playing on the populations fears "you don't want another terrorist attack", "you don't want you children exposed to illegal drugs".

I'd imagine there would be a large percentage of the population primed with the opinion that drugs are bad without any real informed opinions past that.

Sure it's still being sold, but more in an out of sight out of mind type way for those opposed.

One reason is that people (like me) don't want to further legitimize something they want society to discourage. I am strongly against drug use, and believe it sends the wrong message to impressionable kids to make it (more) legal.

No reason to downvote things you disagree with, folks.

Thanks for sharing your contrary opinion, davidmurphy. :) Can you explain why you're against drug use, specifically marijuana (not the harder drugs)? And are you against alcohol as well?

EDIT: lol, I write the post and he goes from -1 to 4. Ah well. :)

I'm not a fan of drugs either[1]. I've never smoked or taken an illegal drug, and I drink comparatively rarely.

The thing is, prohibiting things just makes them seem cooler. For example, 80% of new smokers start before the age of eighteen. Few people would sign up to an expensive habit that smells foul and gives you cancer if not for the lure of the forbidden.

[1] Although to be fair, I'm even less of a fan of governments telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

Isn't that what parents are for? I also don't want kids to smoke cigarettes, but that doesn't mean I want anyone caught with tobacco thrown in jail.

Extending the metaphor, tobacco smoking rates have fallen to new record lows in the US. Not via prohibition, but through taxation and education.

Having Government enforce what people can or cannot do in their private lives is a slippery slope, David. If I don't want homosexuality legitimized, let's keep sodomy illegal, okay?

Slippery slope arguments are also a slippery slope.

"I am strongly against drug use"

Why are you strongly opposed to letting individuals decide what to put into their body? Are you also strongly opposed to alcohol and tobacco?

I just don't understand why many people opposed to marijuana are OK with alcohol; drunks are more likely to speed, brawl, and generally behave poorly, while stoners are more likely to drive 15MPH, munch on snacks, and generally chill out.

What else do you want to make illegal? I'd prefer to not legitimize horrorcore rap, but I don't want it to be illegal. The same with biker shorts.

It just seems like laws should be for things that we think breaking will undo the moral fabric of society more than denying people freedom will. IMO, this drug doesn't meet the bar.

It's fine to be against something but I think this comes down to basic adult human rights. I have a theory that if it is regulated, kids would actually have less opportunity to use it because in order to get it they would have to find someone to buy it for them or give it to them and that person would be taking a risk for little benefit much as with the purchase of or giving alcohol to a minor. As it is now, the dealers all run the same risk and so they are willing to sell to anybody and are highly motivated to find new customers.

I see your point.

Where does it end though? If the government can regulate what I do with my own body when it comes to drugs, why stop there? What about dangerous sports? Dangerous eating habits?

Should the governments prescribe a set of "safe" sports? Or approve a range of "safe" foods to consume? How about unsafe sexual practices?

If you answer "no", then how are drugs different?

In fact the big problems stem precisely from the attempt to control drugs, creating artificial scarcity and consequently high prices that lead of organized crime serving the market.

I'm also strongly against drug use, and think society should discourage it through education.

On the other hand, the war on drugs is destroying Mexico, and is not stopping drug use here in the States. I just don't think we can afford the drug war's costs (social, foreign policy, and monetary) any more. If you can't teach your kids to stay off drugs, I'm sorry, but they're on their own, as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: I don't live in California, and haven't looked at Prop 19 in detail.

Identifying law and morality inevitably means defining morality as peaceful coexistence with authority, which is a deeply unamerican and deeply illiberal concept, even when the authority is democratic. Respect for the law helps maintain a functional democratic society, but it says nothing about the morality of acts that are allowed or prohibited by the law.

Besides, in practice, your idea of right and wrong does not match the law anyway. Romantic relationships, for instance, are largely unpoliced. if you think marijuana use is wrong, then smoking marijuana just takes its place alongside sleeping with your friend's girlfriend, pretending to be in love with a sensitive, conservative girl so you can fuck her, and lying to your girlfriend about seeing other women as something that is deeply wrong but best left legal. Not to mention all the behaviors that are self-destructive but legal: excessive alcohol consumption, drinking sugary beverages, watching infomercials, etc.

The mismatch between law and morality, and the enormous overlap between legal and self-destructive behaviors, can never be eliminated, nor even reduced much. It's obvious to every child by the time they're teenagers, if only because basic civic education teaches skepticism of the law. Of the three dramatic internal struggles than define American history, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement, almost every American sides in two out of three cases with people who refused to comply with unjust, oppressive laws. (It's irrelevant that which two is still sadly controversial.) We're also taught never to be afraid to be in the moral minority. Even when a matter is not weighty enough to justify rebellion, even if it is best for the sake of civil unity to appear to comply and to bow to the law when caught, it is always imperative to make our moral judgments independent of the law. We can be morally taught or advised by others, but we never put our moral judgment up for a vote. I'm sure you agree with this, and I'm sure you will or do teach your kids this if you have them. So what's the big deal about marijuana? It's just one of a thousand legal things you will have to teach your kids not to do. It's still legal to undermine a girl's self-esteem so she'll do things for you sexually that she really doesn't want to do. Hey, it's legal, it's popular, why not? (Well, you won't teach your kids explicitly not to do that, but it will follow from the basics.) Sometimes it's pragmatic to bring law and morality into line, and sometimes it's a huge distraction and waste of money to try.

If you're nevertheless determined to cultivate respect for the law as a moral institution, you should still be in favor of marijuana legalization. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and making alcohol illegal is not an option. Therefore, the illegal status of marijuana will always be a glaring advertisement for the arbitrariness of the law and will continue to turn almost every college kid -- even me, who was never much of a fan of marijuana -- into a willing drug criminal. Thanks to pot, I now feel pretty comfortable with the fact that some of my friends have dealers, and that if I want some kind of illegal drug, I'm just a phone call or two away from being introduced to a drug dealer and making a purchase. It doesn't seem weird to me, and it doesn't even seem very dangerous. Aside from speeding and failing to come to a complete stop before a right on red, smoking pot socially is the only way I'm comfortable breaking the law. Every time I'm offered pot at a party and say, "Sure, why not," I'm reminded that laws are often silly and arbitrary, and I become more comfortable being a criminal. Many Americans approve of that attitude, but it sounds like you do not, so why do you support a law that undermines respect for the law?

While I don't share your opinions on marijuana, I do have negative feelings about some more harmful drugs. However I still don't want to lock people in a cage for decades should they choose to ingest them. Nor do I think the good done through "sending a message" by doing so would outweigh the injustice and cost of the law itself.

But keep in mind I'm a libertarian, and I generally support locking people in cages in fewer circumstances than the average member of the population.

The problem is that keeping pot illegal at this juncture, is a joke.

Maybe 25% of the population has smoked weed, and yet these people for the most part aren't facing any penalties. If you are going to have laws, you need a force that is able to enforce those laws, otherwise those laws are a joke and the government is a joke.

Legalizing marijuana is just the state coming to grips with reality. All criminalization has done is cause most generations to thumb their noses and defy a majority of laws that are on the books.

42% for 12th graders

Source: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

42.4 for older people

Source: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cann...

Suggests it's 12.3% in the US which I find more believable.

The study you cited seems to ask "...EVER used". Which could just mean took one puff once when very drunk.

Forgive me, but the link you're citing marks 81% by age 45 have tried cannabis at one point. Where are you getting your 12.3?

It's actually roughly 85% of Americans have used weed by age 55.[1] The reason the numbers don't normally reflect that is because the age of first use varies widely, so asking what percentage of people currently alive have smoked weed yields a very different answer than asking what percentage of normal people smoke weed during some point of their lives.

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...

I find the view that kids are incapable of making decisions a little strange. Yes, at a young age people are more inclined to get talked into something they don't really want to do, but this is often an important lesson in itself. Youth is also a time when the majority of experiences are new, and the age when children are first exposed to drugs (nicotine and alcohol included) is also around the age when they begin to make their own decisions. Personally, I know that lots of the things I did at 16-18 turned out to be a bad idea. That is kinda the point. If at 16 you skip work/school to socialize you might get fired and lose your beer money, do that at 30 you might get fired and lose your house. I'd say the same applies to kids and their exposure to drugs, learning while there are fewer consequences is the point of youth.

How many mother's sons getting raped are you prepared to sacrifice to that end?

Don't be under any illusions. What you advocate justifies the continued perpetration of horrors on people who were once children.

Fear of change.

Where do you draw the line?

People are going to commit suicide anyway, so why not legalize it and tax it?

I would have voted no if I was in CA, and am glad it's failed.

I'm glad you don't live in CA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com