Hacker News Reader

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/marijuana-california-l...

First search result in Google. Black market for pot growing in CA at the expense of the legalized market.

The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move.

No, the violence was caused by criminals funded themselves primarily by breaking prohibition laws. If violence was caused by prohibition, Utah would have been the most violent state in the nation for most of its history, since prohibition was the law in most of Utah for most of its history. It still is the law in parts of Utah.

Utah is a somewhat oddball case to cite as evidence around prohibition. They are 60+% Mormon, with a strong religious directive not to drink.

Right, and my point was that it was the people that were responsible for the violence, not prohibition.

After all, marijuana was technically subject to prohibition until quite recently, and yet the very lucrative pot market was not marred by violence.

Theres been plenty of violence due to marijuana prohibition! Never mind all the human misery from incarseration.

> Black market for pot growing in CA at the expense of the legalized market.

The amount of regulation pretty much guaranteed a "market failure" for legal pot.

Almost like that was the intended outcome...

Left leaning people want more government regulation and then expect pot legalization with no regulations. Reality doesn't quite work this way.

One of the arguments was that it would being in all sorts of tax dollars that could be used for great things. Tax Dollars=more expensive pot. So from this perspective, it worked as intended, even though many of the supports may not have actually thought it through.

You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that the cost of complying with regulations is higher than the overhead of costs that come with running an illegal drug manufacturing/selling operation.

Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations.

"You are making an unsubstantiated assumption that the cost of complying with regulations is higher than the overhead of costs that come with running an illegal drug manufacturing/selling operation."

The proof is the cost of legal weed, which is sometimes double the cost of the black market prices, due to regulations and taxes.

"Also, your point was proven factually wrong, as pot is way cheaper in legal states and is way safer, thanks to regulations."

Safer? Maybe. Cheaper? Hardly. You have provided zero proof and your arguments just don't make a lot of sense.

The proof is the cost of legal weed, which is sometimes double the cost of the black market prices, due to regulations and taxes.

No, the cost of legal weed that is actually 100% what it claims to be is double the cost of black market stuff that might be (or based on police reports and various studies, almost certainly is) adulterated with various contaminants, including lawn grass, actual weeds, and trace amounts of other drugs sold by the dealer or his supplier.

It's like complaining that organic beef is twice the price of grain-finished hormone-treated beef. No duh. You have to pay extra for quality and the proof of quality.

Left leaning people want more government regulation and then expect pot legalization with no regulations. Reality doesn't quite work this way.

No, left-leaning people wanted more government regulation--and expected pot legalization with regulations. Which is what they got. But a lot of places, primarily right-leaning, chose to simply continue banning pot stores and deliveries within their jurisdictions.

Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing.

"Which is what they got. But a lot of places, primarily right-leaning, chose to simply continue banning pot stores and deliveries within their jurisdictions."

Yeah, well, this isn't what we're talking about. Left-leaning people wanted pot legalized and regulated and didn't seem to grasp that this means an increase in prices.

"Of course, reality doesn't quite work that way. Black market sales are still pretty strong in right-leaning parts of CA. The pot sales are thus still happening there, but they aren't seeing the tax revenues that their more liberal counterparts are seeing."

As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.

The black market in CA, as per your linked article, is with regards to growing, NOT retail sales. And that's because of bad regulations pushing growers to illicit activity.

Left-leaning people wanted pot legalized and regulated and didn't seem to grasp that this means an increase in prices.

Left-leaning people grasped that this meant increased prices...Pot shops do quite well in liberal areas even though they're more expensive than the corner dealer.

As stated in the articles I linked to, the black market is thriving in many parts of CA..it has nothing to do with right-leaning areas.

It has everything to do with right-leaning areas since the black market is thriving in the many parts of red CA that still prohibit marijuana sales. The black market (for sales to end-customers) isn't doing as well as it used to in left-leaning areas, though the black market for suppliers is still doing well for the suppliers that haven't yet been caught.

My argument may be 'all over the place', but you seemed to have followed it pretty well.

"How exactly would legalization hurt Mexico? Look at Portugal to see how we should all move towards dealing with drugs and addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal problem."

Portugal didn't have cartels running entire sections of the country. Drugs may be part of the problem with Mexico, but the cartels are too powerful and legalizing them will not solve the corruption problem..and the violence will continue.

"The violence in the 1930s WAS caused by the prohibition, sure it had lasting effects but ending prohibition was still the right move."

It was. But we had a corruption problem as well. Criminals don't just go away overnight. There are plenty of other ways to make money, once you have money, power, and influence. Legalizing drugs will not solve the corruption problem in Mexico.

"Can you cite the rise of black market marijuana in California? The market is doing well and bringing in good tax revenue in every state I've read about."

A simple google search:

https://reason.com/video/californias-new-recreational-mariju...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-crac...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinmurphy/2019/04/04/cannabis...

"As for the opioid crisis, the issue wasn't that people one day decided they wanted to get hooked on them. The issue was they had pain or were recovering from a surgery and were being prescribed highly addictive medication that was being pushed by pharmaceutical companies without proper warning or care. Marijuana could have been given in these cases and it without the same problems of addiction."

Who decides to get hooked on anything? Some people get addicted to things faster than others. No matter how many warnings you give someone, it will happen...and the company will get sued for millions of dollars.

The cigarette companies are a good example of this. Cigarettes have been know to cause cancer for 50+ years. Yet, we will have people smoking, getting cancer, and suing these companies for millions of dollars.

"How exactly would legalization hurt Mexico? Look at Portugal to see how we should all move towards dealing with drugs and addiction as a health problem instead of a criminal problem."

Again the 'Portugal' argument is misplaced.

Portugal has not legalized drugs.

Portuguese Police will throw you in jail forever if they catch you with large amounts of any drugs.

The material difference between Portugal and most other advanced nations is how they treat possession of small amounts - instead of jail, you get therapy.

Great, I wish the same for America.

But 'Legalizing hard drugs' is a complete different, position, it's not close to reasonable.

Thanks to 'Fentanyl' the argument becomes glowingly problematic - OD's are skyrocketing everywhere, and 'overdose' now kills considerably more people than guns and cars every year.

Given that OD's are rising rapidly, and the others are contained - OD's are soon going to be the cause of concern.

Full legalization of 'hard drugs' would mean it's in your coca-cola (again), meth in your red bull, opiates for any little thing. Though many would stay away, and many frankly can 'handle their drugs' - a material chunk of civilization would be addicted, to the point it would be a massive mental health crisis.

We are already pushing reforms to seriously limit the number of opioids prescribed because it's such an addiction problem. In Canada, you get sometimes 1, 2 or 3 opiate pills only (!) because of the concern.

Decriminalization of small amounts may very well help.

But 'legalization' of hard drugs will yield a health catastrophe pretty quickly.

I'm always shocked at the sheer lack of understanding of social consequence in these forums. I get the 'Liberty' argument, I get 'Harm Reduction' (though it's not always a great story), I get 'thinking out loud' for bold new ideas.

But legalization of hard drugs for most civilizations will yield destruction.

The 'war on drugs' will continue for as long as they are addictive and powerful.

Fentanyl is just the beginning.

There is quite a big difference between the prescription Fentanyl patches and the crap coming out of China and co. It is actually a very effective pain medication for those who need it, I've taken it before and lived to tell the tale.

What poeple don't talk about is the damage that UNDER-prescription does, politicians (not doctors) are taking away what quality of life people do have left. People receiving pallative care are often being denied pain adiquate pain medication, I wouldn't call that civilised.

This opioid chrisis stems from doctors carelessly prescriping pain medication and patients (who haven't been educated), being just as careless. The term 'pain killer' has done a huge amount of damage, if you try to kill your pain, you're going to have problems (very fine line between no pain and high), the goel is to be able to function, simple things like be able to sleep.

I don't think Naloxone is helping matters, it provides a safety net allowing adicts to take ever higher doses.

"This opioid chrisis stems from doctors carelessly prescriping pain medication and patients"

Yes, so think of what would happen if you could buy opioids willy nilly, wherever.

So yes, thanks - even with 'intelligent actors' in the system, it's also a problem.

FYI - the crisis is definitely not just 'doctors' - it's a whole assembly of problems. Doctors can be misinformed, patients can be demanding, regulatory issues, pressure from drug companies.

Apparently America is getting better at prescribing fewer opioids as well, so this is good, but 'getting smart about how to prescribe opioids' (which is good) is one part of the 'war on drugs'.

As for medical uses of Fentanyl, super, that's great, all for it if there's legitimacy - but it's again it's going to 100% have to be 'a controlled substance', ergo, people arrested for smuggling quantities, which they will, ergo, 'war on drugs' continues.

You can legalize hard drug without them necessary being included in coca-cola or red bull. _Regulation_ is the master word here. States can forbid its inclusion in food and drink and control its distribution.

Beside, the concern about "hard drugs" used recreationally, are the same as with alcohol. Prevention against abuse is the key to reasonnable use.

"Beside, the concern about "hard drugs" used recreationally, are the same as with alcohol. "

They are not, though.

Weed (not a hard drug), sure.

But meth, coke and opioids are not very much like alcohol at all really.

I can see legalization of folks chewing on coca leaves maybe, i.e. something like coffee ... but beyond that ... I don't think it's going to work in any regulatory environment.

The 'liberty' it provides the few who can a) handle their stuff and b) have safety nets (i.e. middle and upper class) is not enough to warrant the terrible effects it will have on others.

These things are already a problem in some workplaces: construction, truck driving, because of the intensity of competition etc. - loosening the bounds just creates more problems.

I do think we should decriminalize, but I don't think that our little party at Burning Man is worth the damage that it will wreak in other places.

I mostly agree with you, but are you sure that marijuana can offer the same level of acute pain relief as opiods?

No, it can't. But sometimes too much pain relief isn't a good thing. Your body adjusts to no pain, and it becomes difficult to discontinue to drug.

Pain is an important signal and, in general, should only be treated enough to take the edge off. Ideally, the root cause should be addressed.

Of course, there are plenty of chronic and terminal conditions where opiates are appropriate.