

Facebook Billionaire Explains Why He Backs Prop 19 - edw519
http://blogs.forbes.com/luisakroll/2010/10/06/facebook-billionaire-explains-why-he-backs-prop-19/

======
jacquesm
So, is his opinion more relevant for having that much stock in facebook?

I'm all for a more realistic stance on drug (ab)use, the United States has way
too many people serving prison sentences on grounds that in most other
jurisdictions would merely get you a slap on the wrist.

So even if I agree with the ideas behind proposition 19 (and I think it
doesn't go far enough, why should there be an age limit, smoking has no age
limit, neither does drinking, but selling cigarettes and booze to minors is an
offense in many places) I don't see what his (theoretical) riches have to do
with it, other than that he can spend some money on causes that he sees as
worthy.

Personally I think that wealthy people sponsoring political causes is a
terrible way to run a country, sometimes that will lead to things good for
everybody, but most of the times I would expect such wealthy backers to
support legislation that benefits them or their corporations.

As for Mokovitz having that much money, he doesn't, he's got a bunch of
Facebook stock, and that's not exactly the same as having money in the bank.

Of course that goes for many people on the Forbes 400, but I'm thinking that
$70,000 may not be as much of a pittance as you might expect based on the
numbers thrown around there, I don't think he won't be able to go shopping on
Monday but I also don't think it is below the radar for him.

~~~
il
He's probably sold a bunch of that stock on the second market. FYI, drinking
absolutely has an age limit! In fact, in some states, the ticket for underage
drinking is more than for possession of weed.

~~~
jacquesm
That's only 15 states, in the rest of them underage drinking in a private
setting is either explicitly allowed or not on the books (so in a gray area).

I got that here:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age>

Which may of course be out of date.

~~~
Locke1689
You're portraying this wrong. Only 19 do not restrict underage drinking at
all. 15 ban it in all cases and the rest have certain exceptions for location
and family members. The majority ban underage drinking in most cases, not
allow it.

~~~
jacquesm
> (how to lie with statistics)

Right, I'll just leave it at that.

~~~
Locke1689
Yeah I deleted that immediately after posting because I thought it was too
hyperbolic (despite being a great book).

~~~
jacquesm
I still don't see how what you wrote conflicts with what I wrote though.

If

    
    
       19 states allow it
    
       15 ban it completely
    
       the rest have exceptions for location and family members
    

Then it stands to reason that a majority of the states allow it in some form
just as much as a majority (but a smaller one) forbids it in some form.

Because it was more complex than just that single number (the 15 that
completely forbid it) I included the link so you can verify for yourself that
only 15 states have an outright ban.

What is considered a 'private setting' and a family situation is not for me to
decide, we're talking about _consumption_ here, not about sales.

So in 35 states drinking by minors in some settings is legal, and in 19 of
them there are no restrictions.

By the same logic, in 31 states there are some restrictions on alcohol
consumption, and it is completely forbidden in 15 of those.

~~~
Locke1689
Right, but in those states where some drinking is allowed, there are far more
places where it isn't allowed than where it is. I think it's disingenuous to
phrase _exceptions_ in the active sense.

------
dirtyaura
Off-topic, but I went to see what does this billionaire do nowadays:
<http://www.asana.com>

Sounds interesting, but what's wrong with their web pages? Both Chrome and
Safari seem to cut the bottom part of the text.

There seems to be Javascript snippet to resize the blog but it ain't working.
And they use iframe for blog content, why? Maybe they are developing some new
technology and used it to implement their own blog. Seems that tech ain't
production ready yet,

There's even a comment:

 _I assure you, we typically write nicer code than this. This is git-it-done
hacktown. -jr_

~~~
icco
That is weird. I'm also creeped out by any company that has as many 'advisors'
as they do employees (10 emp, 13 advisors). But then again, maybe that is how
these companies work...

~~~
mlinsey
Those are angel investors as well as advisors.

------
extension
Why do so many folks use "overcrowding" as a rationale for keeping innocent
people out of prison? Is that really the best reason you can come up with? If
there was room for them, would it be fine? Would you legalize legitimate
crimes because jail was full?

~~~
grandalf
Of all the rationales, that's a poor one. How about:

\- Forcing it onto the black market makes producing marijuana the most
profitable use of lots of land that would otherwise be used for non-crime
related agriculture.

\- Locks up lots of people for non-violent offenses, ruining lives.

\- Deprives the state of Billions of dollars in tax revenue

\- Wastes billions on the nearly impossible task of enforcement

\- Leads to US military intervention all over central and south america, which
leads to puppet regimes, corruption, and tremendous amounts of human
suffering.

\- Marijuana proceeds fuel the expansion of criminal orgs that also practice
human trafficking and import harder drugs. Legalization will destroy many of
these organizations.

\- Promotes the emphasis on alcohol as the recreational drug of choice in
America, when in fact Marijuana generally has fewer adverse side effects.

~~~
there
_Marijuana proceeds fuel the expansion of criminal orgs that also practice
human trafficking and import harder drugs. Legalization will destroy many of
these organizations._

will it really destroy them? it seems like they will be able to provide the
same product for a much cheaper price because it will not be taxed.

i don't know much about this proposition, but would it still be considered
illegal to be in possession of marijuana not sold/taxed by authorized dealers?
would anyone really be able to tell whether a person is in possession of
marijuana that came from an authorized dealer or from a gang member?

~~~
btilly
A commonly cited estimate is that fully half of the income of the Mexican drug
cartels comes from marijuana. If you deprive them of that revenue they won't
go away, but their influence will surely be substantially weakened.

