New Yorkers with pot convictions will now be the first to get to sell it
politico.com
politico.com
As opposed to conseqentialism, in this view, if the laws are made in accordance with agreed and lawful procedure, they are just.
Most people skew towards consequentialism, but not all.
1. https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-deontology...
This isn't exclusive to laws though anyhow. If you believe morality can be better tomorrow than today then you have to accept either being immoral today or only relatively moral to your own time.
In fact, why do we even change laws? We must aim to only make new non-overlapping laws preserving the integrity of our previous ones.
I despise any Government favors for "correcting the past". It puts people who have nothing to do with it, in a disadvantaged position.
Unfortunately, this is all too common in progressive cities and largely, the whole progressive agenda with rife with absurdities of this sorts. Collectivist sacrifice over individualism.
Unequal treatment of citizens is how you cause instability in the society.
When the USSR dissolved some of those who took risks became uber rich.
Buying shares is not, by the way, how most oligarchs made their money. Rigged auctions and embezzlement were far more common.
Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk. This is not an even playing field either.
Facebook asked you for your hotmail password and emailed all of your friends. No one can do that now. Fortune favours the bold and punishes the copycat
Or rather corrupt politicians, oligarchs & murderers. At least according to your USSR example.
> Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk
I seriously doubt most of those skills are really transferable to the post legalization market in any meaningful way…
The conditions and constraints for legal growers are very different. Even more so if we consider distribution and retail.
The distribution side is easier under legalization but experience provides additional benefits. The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Growing avocados is very different compared to growing tomatoes and it is different than growing grapes for ice wine. Can someone who grows tomatoes become a great wine maker? They can and have a better chance compared to the average person but those skills don't translate one to one. I would prefer to hire someone who made wine before over tomato grower because there is a learning curve.
> The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Right, I would assume the most important skill here would be doing all of this without being detected by the police. E.g. you might loss X% of you stash due to spoilage once in a while but you’d still come out ahead over someone who takes much more care over his product but get’s caught.
Now they are “victims”. It’s stupid, and half of these folks are just hustling their victimhood status with “partners”.
New York has some of the best farmland in the country, much of which is derelict due to federal and state policy. There’s going to be a boom in business relating to weed, and nonsense like this isn’t going to slow the flow of cash.
Labelling one "discrimination" and not the other is, to be polite, silly.
Some people would call the fact that a poor person can't muster the resources for entrepreneurial self-actualization discrimination. Some people wouldn't.
In this case, I would lean on the wisdom of my long-departed grandfather: "Life is unfair, deal with it."
Life is unfair, sometimes it is unfair in a direction you're not accustomed.
Except that's a terrible way of offering "recourse". It really only benefits the people who are able to start a business, which probably means they're already financially well off. Every other convict gets nothing. Overall the policy seems similar to admissions policies at colleges that favor black students. They're trying to right some wrong, but the policy is so poorly targeted that it ends up benefiting primarily blacks who are already well off (and probably the least negatively affected by past discrimination), whereas poorer blacks who are actually suffering from the effects of past discrimination get nothing.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
My god man.
The actual situation is much more nuanced than that. The war was also supported by many black leaders and drug makers at the time.
>But early on, many African-American leaders championed those same tough-on-crime policies.
>The Rev. George McMurray was lead pastor at the Mother A.M.E. Zion Church in Harlem in the 1970s, when the city faced a major heroin epidemic. He called for drug dealers to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. [...]
>Black support for the drug war didn't just grow in New York alone. At the federal level, members of the newly formed Congressional Black Caucus met with President Richard Nixon, urging him to ramp up the drug war as quickly as possible. [...]
>Voting records show that many black lawmakers supported some of the most punitive drug-war-era laws in America. But even some people who have long opposed harsh sentencing laws understand where supporters were coming from. The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a longtime pastor in New York, once was addicted to heroin and served time. He's convinced that black leaders who embraced the drug war did serious harm to the community, but says a lot of African-Americans were desperate for ways to make their neighborhoods safe again. "If you're the victim, then you don't want to hear anything about treatment, just, 'Get this guy off the street.' "
Ehrlichman told Baum. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
In WWII, people hiding the Jews were breaking the law; people killing them were following orders.
Now we celebrate the people who broke the law, and vilify the people who followed it.
I realize it's a completely different situation, but perhaps this actually gives a benefit to those who have been disadvantaged by the previous policy. It's not as good as monetary compensation, but I can't see a world in which the state has enough money to compensate all the victims of the war on drugs.
If you approve of a "rebellion" against this law, as opposed to just some democratic change of legislation, I wonder how would you handle other regulative norms... If the US decides to allow selling Kinder eggs should we reward the previous smugglers?
Of course this assumes that you don't expand your definition of "human rights" to include the absolute right of consuming cannabis. But, you see, it's difficult enough to agree that the right not to be killed for your religion is a fundamental human right. We got there thankfully but not without hiccups. When you expand "human rights" to include everything you want you are making that expression controversial end devoid of value - because less and less people will agree with you.
Don't forget a large part of the American Revolution exactly dealt with these kinds of material "regulations", to which the American people and British government disagreed were an issue of human rights.