

Meet the Marijuana Snack Kings of the Future - KaiP
http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/christina_davidson/2009/08/meet_the_marijuana_snack_kings_of_the_future.php

======
jibiki
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_44_(2006)>

"Existing Colorado law classifies possession of one ounce or less of marijuana
as a Class 2 petty offense punishable by a fine of $100."

I'm confused, is the article a joke?

~~~
anigbrowl
As below, medical marijuana (and other) laws are rapidly changing the
landscape. Although this is a risky area for entrepreneurship, it's probably
passing that point where it's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.

This is why growers and retailers in the Bay area enthusiastically supported
the recent pot tax passed in Oakland and are supporting a California pot tax -
as soon as you start providing revenue to the government, you start looking
respectable.

------
matthewer
Is this really the kind of article that should be on HN?

~~~
kulkarnic
I don't know: HN is rapidly replacing my feed reader; and I think the news is
interesting in its own right (may not have anything to do with "hacking", but
still).

~~~
pwmanagerdied
I think that there are reasons that this article should be here, but "but
still" is a terrible one. That's the kind of attitude that causes sites to
decline in quality like Digg and Reddit. Criteria have to be rigidly enforced
or things will go to shit.

~~~
Confusion
Things go to shit _when_ criteria are rigidly enforced. You can't define
'hacking' or 'entrepeneurship' and any set of criteria attempting to do so
will require liberal interpretation to allow everything of interest. The
result is necessarily that some stuff is not of interest. The only way to be
sure everything is of interest, is by not allowing anything.

~~~
derefr
The shittiness of a social news site has nothing to do with the any sort of
enforcement or criteria for a topic, or even having a topic at all. Rather,
things go to shit on a social news site when the _community_ is composed of
people who can't (roughly) agree on what they like to read.

To regurgitate an old adage I heard from a Dungeon Master: "It's not the game
that's fun, it's the players." We're here to _share_ links and _talk_ about
stuff, not to "post" and "comment", blind and deaf, into the void. As long as
we all like one another, the site is good. When we attract a group of people
we don't like as much, and those people attract people we don't like at all,
_then_ the site will suck, because those people won't be sharing and talking
about the same things we want to share and talk about.

