
Nevada becomes fifth US state to allow cannabis sales for recreational purposes - omilu
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/nevada-cannabis-marijuana-legal-recreational-weed-sales-pot-shops-buy-legalised-a7817871.html
======
UnpossibleJim
I don't even smoke/eat pot and I'm happy this is going through. It's just a
mire of confusion that tobacco and alcohol are legal, while a relatively
harmless drug is federally illegal. You can't even do medical research on MJ
as the laws stand. Mostly because of a backlash against a counter culture who
didn't support a corrupt set of government officials and a textile industry
that doesn't even produce in America, anymore. I'm (obviously) American, but
this propping up of a legacy of corruption and convenient morality is just
infuriating...... sorry. Rant =)

~~~
cmahler7
Reasons it's still illegal

1\. Pharma lobbyists

2\. Private prison lobbyist

~~~
kevinnk
The biggest funders of the anti prop 64 campaign ("Adult Use of Marijuana
Act") were private individuals and police unions.

~~~
calafrax
For Nevada Question 2 of the $3,771,500 spent in opposition $3,650,000 (96.7%)
of that came from Sheldon Adelson.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Quest...](https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Question_2_\(2016\))

For California Prop 64 of the $2,077,438 spent in opposition $1,364,000
(65.6%) came from Julie Schauer.

The only other major donor was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM
Action) which donated $489,150 (23.5%)

The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council donated $25,000 (1.2%) and the
Peace Officers Research Association of Claifornia PIC donated $25,000 (1.2%).

[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_\(2016\))

In both cases the majority of support for the opposition came from a SINGLE
WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL - not "private individuals."

I am not sure if the Teamsters directly represent police officers but they are
a union and Peace Officers Research Association sounds police related so you
are right that some vaguely "police" and "union" related groups did donate a
relatively insignificant 2.4% to the opposition campaign, but that is it.

~~~
kevinnk
PORC is one of the largest police advocacy organizations in California state.
SAM is funded largely by private individuals (yes, "individuals" not
"individual", although its single donor is Julie Schauer). Notably absent is
any "big pharma" or private prisons, in contrast to what the GP stated.

------
egwynn
I’ve never been able to understand how the anti-weed interests have been able
to rationalize the astronomical costs of enforcement and punishment for so
long. Even if I went out on a limb and said, “well, it’d suck if TONS of
people smoked TONS of pot ALL of the time”, then I’d still be skeptical about
whether that’s a problem worth spending billions of dollars (and locking up
millions of people) to address.

Put another way: am I missing some sane way to do a cost-benefit-analysis for
cannabis policy that winds up showing costs (or negative externalities) that
are big enough to conclude that criminalization is the best answer?

~~~
throwaway93745
> am I missing some sane way to do a cost-benefit-analysis for cannabis policy
> that winds up showing costs (or negative externalities) that are big enough
> to conclude that criminalization is the best answer?

Yes, you are missing one thing: you classify "locking up millions of people"
as a cost. For those who created and are perpetuating this practice, it is
considered to be a _benefit_ , not a cost. Consider private prisons, for
instance: they would go bankrupt without such policies. Consider also that it
is overwhelmingly black people, or hispanics, who go to jail on minor pot-
related charges. A fundamental purpose of these policies is to provide the
ability to lock up millions of colored people. Without this policy, the legal
persecution of minorities would become more difficult.

The criminalization of pot is fundamentally about institutional racism. Yes
it's expensive for the taxpayers, but the racists in power consider the price
tag to be worth it.

~~~
tacoman987
I'm going to get downvoted to hell, but I love that we both used throwaway
accounts to respond similarly at the same time.

~~~
ozzmotik
well i can't help but upvote said arguments because there's a lot of truth to
them tbh. even if racism isn't inherently part of the system, it's still
widely present in those that enact the rules of it!

------
prodmerc
I can't believe so much money was spent on this shit. Unlike alcohol, cannabis
is less addictive and way more pacifying, it doesn't make people violent, at
worst it makes them dumb, unmotivated and complacent - just like alcohol.

There's literally no reason to it being banned _if_ alcohol is still legal.
It's a better replacement, too.

I smoke every now and then, to relieve stress. I just go to sleep, I don't
like the high and unlike alcohol I can still follow through on that thought of
"nah, it detrimental" when I have stuff to do.

Alcohol is like "one drink, man, you'll be good" and then it's all downhill
because one drink leads to half a dozen. Every. fucking. time.

~~~
SeeDave
Really, really mixed opinions because you are totally right when it comes to
alcohol, but I can't completely agree with your perspective on Marijuana.

Neither are entirely healthy or can demonstrably lead to long-term positive
outcomes if consumed by individuals under the age of 25 or so. These are not
nutritive vitamins by any means.

That said, the long-term effect of jailing African-American or Hispanic
teenagers for minor possession or sale of inconsequential quantities is
probably far worse.

It's a real toss-up, in my opinion, so all I can say is this: completely and
totally legalize Marijuana, but impose strict penalties (5+ years in jail,
$xx,xxx fine, etc.) for anyone who provides or sells to anyone under 21, and
intensely harsh penalties (10+ years in jail, $xxx,xxx fine) for anyone who
provides or sells to anyone under 18.

~~~
symlinkk
Do you have sources that detail the negative effects on people under 25? I ask
because I have smoked almost every day for about 2 years, I'm 23, and I'm
worried.

~~~
wjossey
Symlinkk- As someone who smoked daily at roughly the same age as you, I can
understand your concern. I smoked almost daily for about four consecutive
years, starting around 21, and ending around 25. Looking back on that period,
I had numerous negative side effects, and it's hard for me to know how much
that's perpetuated in the last 6 years since I moved towards closer to a once
a month usage level, with long stretches of total abstinence mixed in there.

A few things you should consider. First, is it an addiciton? Addicitions
typically manifest themselves in situations where you can't quit using your
substance, or change your behavior, despite negative consequences. Smoking for
two consecutive years definitely makes it a habit, but I obviously can't
comment on whether it's a full on addiction for you.

If you don't feel like you can stop, I'd recommend seeking help. There are
likely local MA (marijuana anonymous) or NA (narcotics anonymous) meetings
near you, and those support networks can be very helpful for a lot of people.

My father died from at 60 due to heavy alcohol consumption, and was more
prepared to die than entertain the thought of no longer drinking. Addiction is
a remarkably challenging disease, which can warp ones decision making
massively, so if you don't believe you can fairly answer the question, you
should think about asking those around you how they see it impacting you.

Wishing you all the best as you seek some answers.

------
chimeracoder
To anyone who's confused by the title: the law was passed in November (by
ballot referendum), but it went into effect today, with the first recreational
sales. (Medical marijuana was already legal in Nevada).

By contrast, Massachusetts also legalized marijuana on the very same day - and
by an almost identical vote margin - but Bay State legislators are still
contemplating whether to let the law take effect at all, and it's unclear if
and when recreational sales will actually become legal.

------
arikr
Am I missing something:

> People aged 21 and above can now buy up to an ounce of the drug at a time
> and use it in their homes if they have a valid _ID in the western state_ ,
> which is famed for the hotels and casinos in its largest city Las Vegas.

> The millions of tourists who visit Nevada cities every year are expected to
> make nearly two of every three purchases from retailers, who began selling
> pot early on Saturday morning.

It requires a Nevada ID but they expect tourists to make two thirds of the
purchases?

~~~
spilk
I don't know where they expect tourists to actually consume the stuff, it's
not legal in public and I can't imagine casinos are too thrilled about people
lighting up in their hotel rooms, even in rooms that are already designated as
smoking rooms.

~~~
grogenaut
I was there in March. Every. Single. Hotel. Floor. Reaked. Of. Pot.

------
pcunite
This, after being told _over and over_ again in school how bad (I specifically
remember marijuana being mentioned) drugs were for you.

~~~
dvt
Marijuana isn't _not_ bad for you, though. It's not like alcohol (or tobacco)
is good for you, but it's still legal.

~~~
coralreef
Semantically, everything is bad for you. Fruits are high in sugar, the sun
gives you cancer.

~~~
dvt
There's a pretty intuitive difference between moonshine and a banana.

~~~
lotsofpulp
But not between a joint and a twinkie, or 20oz soda, or a deep fried
<anything>.

~~~
dvt
I'm not sure. Anything that has psychoactive effects seems like it would be in
a league of its own (caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, LSD, etc.).

~~~
kortex
It's not intuitively obvious that acetaminophen has a startlingly small
therapeutic window, especially when combined with alcohol. It's not
intuitively obvious that alcohol may reduce all-cause mortality in a hormesis-
like fashion, with low chronic consumption reducing risk but high chronic
consumption increasing it. Pharmacology == intuition goes out the window.

~~~
dvt
That's kind of my point, acetaminophen is a psychoactive drug.

------
koolba
> Marijuana smokers will still face fines of up to $600 if they light up in
> public places, including casinos, bars, restaurants, parks, and concert
> halls, and driving under the influence of the drug remains illegal.

Anybody know if that includes when you're in your hotel room or just on the
open casino floor? If so, does "non-smoking room" apply to marijuana as well?

~~~
nullstyle
The key to paranoid consumption in casinos and hotels is the e-cig style vape
pens. They're very inconspicuous and I've had many a craps session now where
no one has batted an eye while I puffed on a vape pen every now and again. If
you're spending money and being respectful, people in the hospitality and
resort industry don't give a fuck.

edit: pro-mode paranoia for in-room consumption brings a smoke buddy,
febreeze, and a generous tip for house keeping into play.

~~~
ryanlol
>edit: pro-mode paranoia for in-room consumption brings a smoke buddy,
febreeze, and a generous tip for house keeping into play.

Or request ozone generators outside the room. This seems surprisingly common.

------
antfarm
From the _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_ movie:
[http://www.upout.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Vintage-
Nevada-...](http://www.upout.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Vintage-Nevada-
marijuana-sign-e1415719315494.png)

------
0x005ab01c
This is going to come in handy for the upcoming Burning Man event, although
there it's going to be difficult to define what a public space is and what
not.

~~~
gkop
I'd go further and say this could have a dramatic impact on the vibe at
Burning Man. Marijuana has historically been one of the least popular
recreational substances at Burning Man, because the smell is hard to disguise.
If marijuana is treated more lightly now by Nevada authorities, I'd expect it
to become more popular at Burning Man, and take "market share" away from other
substances.

Curious what the expert Burners among us think?

~~~
int_19h
If people really wanted weed, why not consume it through edibles? No smell to
disguise there.

~~~
GordonS
It's really difficult to dose right if you eat it. You can easily take too
much and have a _really_ horrible experience.

~~~
int_19h
I disagree. It might take some more experimentation, but once you figure it
out for a particular product for your body weight and metabolism, it's pretty
consistent.

~~~
GordonS
Fair enough, I guess it's different in legal states in the US, where you can
actually buy edibles with a specific amount of THC in them.

