"If you like drinking alcohol and playing blackjack at the casino, Mr. Adelson wants you to be his guest," Tvert said in an email. "If you prefer to consume marijuana while playing video games in the privacy of your home, Mr. Adelson wants you to be in jail."
Ending the 'war on drugs' would be an instant improvement in the lives of large numbers of Americans.
It would. Also, it would make a huge improvement in the quality and quantity of human lives in Mexico, and the rest of Latin America. Extremely conservative estimates for Mexico alone put the death toll above 164,000+ in the past 10 years, and the number of displaced above 1.2 million, >1% of the country's population. By total number of deaths in 2016, the Mexican portion of the drug war by itself is the fourth bloodiest armed conflict on Earth[1] (after Syria, Iraq and Afganistan, above Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and the Boko Haram multinational insurgency).
Having grown up in Mexico, reading Mexican press and seeing the endless amount of mass graves people are now finding through the country (e.g. [2]), I am fairly sure there are plenty of cases not counted in the official estimates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict... . Note: If this makes you scared about planning to visit Mexico, please also remember it is a very large country, and different areas have different levels of violence. Fourth largest conflict in terms of total yearly deaths doesn't mean "it feels like Syria" on account of the population being 100 million. But that doesn't change the vastness of the cost in human lives...
I just had a conversation with my Mexican's wife's brother-in-law last week. About 7 years ago I had asked him about whether he thought legalization of pot would help or hurt Mexico. He felt "bad guys" would just change their business model to harder drugs and other nefarious industries such as kidnapping, prostitution, racketeering, etc. So I was curious if he had changed his opinion.
He mentioned Tijuana for instance is already carved up amongst the various crime organizations. In his opinion it will not help Mexico though it perhaps will not hurt it either.
Personally I think the corruption goes from the top to the bottom and don't really see a quick fix. There would have to be real consequences to taking and giving bribes and other steps like that to re-enact the rule of law. I must say if I was a Mexican cop and told "take our silver or our lead", I'd probably take the bribe too so not really passing judgement. :-/
Sure, no quick fix and political reforms will be needed as well (see my other response in this thread). But changing the demand for weed and for other drugs, and having competition from legal businesses in that regard, will definitely diminish the strength of the cartels. That will make the problem of strengthening the state more tractable, although it won't solve it outright (the state as the collection of instutions, laws and practices, as opposed to our collection of corrupt high ranking politicians)
Unclear. For the first few years of this administration you heard less about it under Peña Nieto, but the estimated numbers keep climbing up, so it is most likely that was media spin for the most part. Also, there is the Ayotzinapa mass kidnapping/murdering of 43 students [1] which happened during his administration and where many people believe the federal government is at least complicit in hindering the Inter-American Human Rights Commission's investigation on the issue [2]. Of course, that is just one anecdotal datapoint (although a particularly shocking one). In general, the feeling is that we got the worst of both worlds: a PRI that is as authoritarian and as hostile to the press as that of the 80's and 90's and yet when it comes to controlling the cartels and local governments, it has as weak of a grip as the Calderon administration did.
Somewhat unrelated, but reinforcing your point about it being corrupt, we keep finding that president Peña Nieto owns quite a few houses he shouldn't be able to afford: [3], [4]
Corruption is a super tough problem to deal with. Hopefully cutting into enough revenue streams will give enough of a foothold to begin to combat the gangs.
I'm hopeful but a bit pessimistic that legalizing marijuana will have much of an impact on the cartel violence in Mexico. There's so much money at stake and it's easy enough for them to switch to trafficking cocaine / heroin / meth. Any reason to think it won't just continue on pace?
Sure, and even legalizing all drugs in the U.S. and the Americas won't fix the problem, since cartels have other sources of income we will likely never legalize: human trafficking, extortion, etc. The full solution will involve painful long term reforms to the political and economical institutions of the countries involved (at least I know it will for Mexico), solving centuries long issues with structural income inequality[1], access to opportunities, race and class divisions, etc, etc.
But we are talking about closing a big revenue stream for the cartels, almost certainly one of the two or three biggest they have, maybe even the largest, just by lifting the prohibition on marijuana. That's not only a step in the right direction, it is a rather big one. In the long term, treating drug addiction as a medical / consumer protection issue in the US rather than primarily a law enforcement one, will be a huge boon towards the future of both nations (and, again, other nations in the Americas that I am not excluding but for which I feel less qualified to speak about).
In short: it won't magically fix the problem, but I do believe it will likely reduce the number of deaths and put us in a path towards a solution.
[1] For the HN libertarian crowd, I don't mean solving income inequality in the sense that everybody should make the same regardless of economic output (although I do believe on a safety net), I mean changing a centuries long setup in which class mobility is near zero and strongly correlated with race, and where most large scale "entrepreneurship" in the country is based of political connections (see telecommunications and media industries in Mexico for example).
To be clear, that quote is made by Adelson's opponents who are trying to cast aspersions on his character. It's not like he said that.
I have no particular insight into Adelson, but if his motives are business, it strikes me as unlikely that the best investment he could make with a few million dollars is in lobbying against marijuana legalization.
The fact that he's doing good business doesn't mean he's not a punchable slimeball. He's stated publicly that he's doing this because he's "anti-addiction". A casino magnate. I suspect there's a special place in hell for those practising hypocrisy at this scale.
Maybe? Honestly, I'm pretty dubious about the investment value of lobbying, full stop.
But regardless, do we have literally any evidence that his a drug baron? That seems like a hell of a thing to put out there on the basis of "he opposes marijuana legalization."
I feel like he's one of the last people you'd suspect of being involved with drugs. Adelson is already a major player in a spectacularly lucrative industry, so it'd be pretty insane to go into hardcore felonies when his legal business might actually have better margins.
The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.
> The Venetian cleared >$300 million after costs in 2014. It'd be a pretty bizarro-world decision to jeopardize that for more money.
They also had to pay $50 million dollars the previous year to the government as a settlement for money laundering, and has been in hot water for allegedly paying bribes to secure casinos in China[1]. Their business isn't exactly squeaky clean as it is.
Absolutely - I wouldn't for a minute assume casino organizations are clean, especially abroad where they might feel safer from domestic prosecution. I just don't think diversifying into unrelated and personally-criminal activities would make much sense.
You think casinos have no involvement in illegal activities because they are already making enough money? Maybe I watch too many movies but that sounds bizarro-world to me.
I think already-rich casino magnates don't get involved in totally unrelated serious crime like importing drugs.
I'm fully aware that the casinos used to be shoulder to shoulder with the mob, and have done plenty of shady things. I guess I just meant that it would be stupid to diversify so riskily - in movie terms, it'd be like a hacker starting a sideline in gun running.
Aaaah, not having read the article I thought the guy they were quoting was like an employee of Adelson or something. Serves me right for not reading the article.
To be fair, that's just an interpretation of his actions. I don't know him at all, but this paragraph may shed more light on his intentions:
...his supporters say the billionaire's crusade against marijuana should be seen as an individual decision rather than a business one. Adelson has had two sons who have struggled with drug addiction, one of whom died of an overdose in 2005. His wife, Miriam Adelson, is a doctor specializing in drug addiction.
“This is a case of someone who's been touched very deeply by drug abuse,” Kevin Sabet, of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said in an email.
Sad, yes, but obviously not an overdose of marijuana... So either an irrational crusade, or a cynical attempt to keep people addicted to gambling and drinking, neither of which is very appealing.
Adelson is also a major Trump donor. He bought a newspaper in Las Vegas and used it to give Trump his first major paper endorsement. He's said a lot of things that, to me, sound shockingly bigoted.
--
To an extent, all of us vote with our dollars. Avoid the Venetian and the Palazzo in Las Vegas and all Las Vegas Sands properties, unless you're the MIT blackjack team or otherwise an advantage player :)
Weed makes people far more cautious, analytical and contemplative, which is not good for businesses that depend on poor impulse control.
Edit:
Folks are reading my comment as "weed makes you too smart to gamble" instead of "weed changes your personality in ways that aren't conducive to gambling (relative to alcohol)."
Okay, let's not put weed on a pedestal here -- it gets you high, it gives you pleasurable experiences, and it has some benefits for sufferers of specific illnesses.
I see no reason it shouldn't be legal, but let's not pretend that it's anything other than mind-altering junk food.
No, I don't think any and all experiences under the influence of pot should be dismissed as meaningless.
In my experience, occasional use of high quality weed has been very beneficial. It gives me a chance to step outside my normal routines of daily thinking and self talk for a few hours, and just look around and experience reality in a different way, which in turn reduces stress, improves mood, and makes music sound great and food taste amazing. The improved mood and stress reduction last long after the experience for me.
Of course getting high all the time probably is not good for you generally. Like any drug, it can easily be misused and overused. But that doesn't mean all experiences with it for everyone are meaningless.
I doubt that weed makes you 'far more cautious' and 'analytical'. Weed severely impairs judgement, motor control and short-term memory for the duration of the high.
Look, Marijuana is okay, but let us not fantasise about positive effects.
You're both right - MJ makes you far more cautious and analytical, but not necessarily more correct. AKA paranoid
Either way, the "impulse buy" reflex is significantly stronger with alcohol than MJ, according to myself and the anecdotes of most everyone I've talked to.
It really depends on what you're smoking. Sometimes my brain turns to mush for a couple hours and sometimes I come up with brilliant ideas I never would have thought of while sober. I credit it with helping to pull me out of depression by making me more appreciative of all the great things in my life, as well as helping me discover and explore my deepest passions. My life would be very different without it.
I take it he loses money if gamblers also smoke marijuana?
I live in Puerto Rico. Ostensibly the case is that we are Catholic and religious. If you read a little more, you get that lots of people possess or buy or sell, but nobody wants to admit it. Then why is the government sustaining such a policy?
The truth is, there must be some people who are obliquely or directly benefiting the sale, distribution and consumption of illegal marijuana. That these same people lose money once marijuana (even medical marijuana) becomes legalized.
Smoking, sugar, alcohol, firearms, ... all these guys have lobbyists in DC or otherwise in order to get their way.
I'd venture to bet its more likely that people are more likely to go to the casino and have a few beers than go to the casino and have a few joints. Marijuana generally makes people more relaxed and content to stay at home rather than venture out.
Furthermore, someone who is drunk and gambling, will likely make many dumb decisions that are profitable for the casino. It's a lot easier to get a gambler to continue gambling (and losing money) by feeding him more booze. Give him more weed and he'll just fall asleep.
A government that wants to control its citizens benefits from making more and more things illegal. It becomes easier to control a people if even the simplest of actions is illegal.
"wealthy individual donors and small businesses, along with drug policy advocacy groups, have funneled far more dollars to the opposition than casinos..."
That seems a bit disingenuous when it goes on to say in the next sentence "Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson is singlehandedly responsible for roughly one-third of all anti-legalization spending this year, a total of $3.5 million in three states so far."
I understand that at a basic level, these are private individual donations, instead of donations from some lobbying group, but when that individual is designated a "casino magnate", does it even matter?
Why isn't he spending money in Maine? Come on dude, throw away some of your money here too. I love this state - a whopping 79k has been spent in opposition so far. A guy like him could really make a difference. Come November, we'd have legal weed and some extra money in our economy.
That's a good question. Probably not in Maine. We like to do things our own way. I'm a transplant and if I learned anything, it's that Mainers really resent outside interests telling us how we should do things. I'm surprised they allow me to vote :)
I think there's some out of state money coming in on our Question 3 (background checks for person to person firearm transfers), in support of Yes. I don't think it has much of a chance of passing, most people I've talked to are sitting here thinking we have the 3rd lowest crime rate in the US, and we have bigger problems that actually need solving (opioid crisis, lack of white collar jobs, etc). Others are skeptical that it's a broadly drafted (some say poorly drafted) measure to pretext more searches.
Sheldon Adelson is an all around horrible person, in addition to his fight against marijuana he is also a huge part of the fight against internet gambling.
Please refuse to use any of his properties for your vacations or conferences. Avoid using the Venetian, Palazzo, and Sands Expo.
If online casinos were allowed to be run from the US, it would be much easier to hold them to a legal standard.
Given that the US is willing to arrest any executive from an online casino, they end up being based in places like Gibraltar. Now that its nearly impossible for sometime to take legal recourse against them, it makes it much more enticing to cheat, steal, etc.
Allows those casinos to be run in the US, and regulate and tax them, and suddenly, you have a lot of legitimate business vying for customers. You will also gain a lot in taxes, along with a bunch of the religious right claiming "you're ruining society".
The US ban froze all existing funds though. The vast majority of "winnings not paid" were directly blocked by government action, not to mention any non-gambled deposits frozen. It effectively turned a shady industry into one with a 100% theft rate overnight.
That might be justifiable as an action against immoral or criminal practices (and those did happen), but it's sure not for the benefit of the players.
He's also a big part of the $750M giveaway of taxpayer money to build a new NFL stadium in Las Vegas. He's going to be a part-owner of the stadium and his LV Sands group is going to operate it. Because the guy who's worth >$30B needs taxpayer cash.
Some issues have a clearly wrong side. Marijuana legalization seems pretty clearly a public good. Laws restricting marriage and whites and blacks, pretty clear. People still resist, but laws restricting gay people from marrying are also similarly obvious right. KKK views about blacks, legal restrictions aimed at black people voting, extremely clear what the right answer is.
Very, very few, and pot legalization isn't one of them. Whether or not it makes sense depends entirely on what you value and what you think the result will be a decade or two from now.
I understand how that's an emotionally appealing sentiment, but I'd be disappointed to learn you actually believe it, since it's so wrong as to be useless in deal with the real world.
This man has the ear and direct number of every national republican politician who matters. He also bought a newspaper to push his agenda, and thanks to Citizens United, can donate enormous amounts of cash to further his causes. So it's hard to see any ground to say the world left him behind.
> This man has the ear and direct number of every national republican politician who matters.
The national Republicans have been completely tarnished by their association with Trump. They are going to get absolutely trounced. NV is going to go blue. It's going to be the Dem's world for a long time now, especially once the Matriarch takes power.
>He also bought a newspaper to push his agenda
Jeff buying Washington Post, that was a smart powerful move. The Las Vegas purchase was a public debacle for him and now everyone knows its just his mouthpiece. Nobody of influence cares about that rag.
Billionaires throwing cash around is just like startup marketing, that is, throwing cash and seeing what sticks. Again, he's just playing at running the world, trying to throw his weight around like it matters. Legalization is going to happen and he's going to look like the asinine old fool he is.
Legalization has already been successfully delayed in CA and FL (this was definitely due to Adelson; I'm not sure about CA) and this disgusting person can help ruin a bunch more lives in the meantime. I think you're being somewhat dismissive of the negative impact he's had.
Sure he's made a negative impact in the past, I hate the guy, I think he's a joke and the future does not lie with him. Legalization will pass, the republicans will be utterly cucked, and he will die a flaccid relic of another time.
Because I work in the public policy sector and have seen the trend charts and polling data. It's going to pass in most states by a greater than five percent margin.
> The national Republicans have been completely tarnished by their association with Trump. They are going to get absolutely trounced. NV is going to go blue.
Trump is receiving support in states that were traditionally blue, you should stop reading the HuffPost and go outside.
> It's going to be the Dem's world for a long time now, especially once the Matriarch takes power.
The Matriarch? Wow, the reality distortion field is strong with Clinton but I didn't know it was that strong.
She is so far from a motherly figure that she makes Thatcher look positively saintly. Hillary may dream of being America's Golda Meir but she is no Golda Meir.
> Jeff buying Washington Post, that was a smart powerful move.
Washington Post, colloquially referred to as Washington Compost? A powerful move? Get real, WaPo has sacrificed editorial integrity to turn into a rag that peddles tripe.
> Billionaires throwing cash around is just like startup marketing, that is, throwing cash and seeing what sticks.
It's aspirations of megalomania, hardly spitballing. You don't do what he's doing just to fulfill a curiosity.
>Trump is receiving support in states that were traditionally blue, you should stop reading the HuffPost and go outside.
I work in public policy running massive computations on polling data. Our firm has a greater than 95% percent successful prediction rating with regards to policy measures and ballot initiatives. Two math PhDs, one of whom is a Fields Medalist, worked on the models we run. I know more about what's going on than you do.
>She is so far from a motherly figure that she makes Thatcher look positively saintly. Hillary may dream of being America's Golda Meir but she is no Golda Meir.
Matriarch doesn't mean "motherly" in the sense of caring or compassion. It literally means the female head of a family or tribe.
>Washington Post, colloquially referred to as Washington Compost? A powerful move? Get real, WaPo has sacrificed editorial integrity to turn into a rag that peddles tripe.
And in the process influences literally millions. It has higher page views and click throughs than the New York Times. It broke the story on Trump's groping.
It's obvious to me that drug lords are paying him to do this. Casinos are notorious money laundering enterprises.
The people who stand to lose the most are propping him up to say this, the drug gangs. Funneling money through a casino operator to support your cause make absolute sense.
I know I am in minority here, but I believe cannabis is not good for society and for individuals using it. I've seen in my own family how chronic cannabis use stupefied and lowered once smart, energetic and bright individuals, who now have short term memory issues, constant cough, and reek like skunks.
The question is, what is the alternative? Currently the alternative is that we throw people (predominantly minorities) in prison for drug use. If the options are 1) a handful of people choose to use it habitually and they get memory issues or 2) we as society lock up (and then pay upkeep on) huge numbers of non-violent people, I'll take option 1 any day of the week.
I don't understand how decriminalization is a long term option. We're saying, it's ok for you to do this, but anyone who provides the service for you is breaking the law (not to mention if you try to service yourself by growing, that's also illegal). It just pushes the drug war up a level to the producers. The costs of the drug war would still exist and the funds wouldn't get put towards rehab programs or schools like they do where it is legalized.
Chronic drug use is severely damaging to the user and their friends/family, that is true across the board for the vast majority of drugs (to include alcohol).
The policy to ban marijuana for everyone is the wrong answer because it clearly doesn't solve the problem of the chronic (ab)user in the first place. The better solution is to redirect the money spent fighting the 'drug war' toward positive things like rehab programs and therapy. You will always have a subset of humans who abuse whatever kind of drugs they can get, you can't stop this. So why punish everyone else who can use drugs in a responsible manner?
That we can agree on. But now substitute cannabis for tobacco or alcohol and see where it leads.
Both of those are as bad and in many cases worse than cannabis and yet use/possession of the one is a crime and the others merely tax revenues. (Unless you're underage, then selling to you is the crime.)
I don't see how we can make all drugs legal and just say "Hey, if you want to ruin your life with heroin then go for it" because then we have people being violent, robbing, etc. That is, the cost of enforcing is worth it, in a big way.
But with pot, the cost of enforcement is very high, particularly in people's lives disrupted, for a societal cost that is small. It seems to me, even as a non-user, that there are a great number of people who use at least occasionally, and attempting enforcement is sweeping back the tide.
Basically, when everybody does it, then we have effectively decided that it is a societal norm.
> "Hey, if you want to ruin your life with heroin then go for it"
The problem is with the "ruin your life" part, not the "heroin" part. If we really want government to get involved, they should get involved when people's lives are being ruined, not when someone is merely making, distributing, or using a substance.
People ruin their lives with drugs, already. But one reason they resort to crime is drugs are expensive (since we restrict them). Plus we fire people who use them on their own time, if they are the kind we can detect later. We don't differentiate between things that have worn off by work time usually. It's a different category to be drunk and driving, vs high last night but not now. White collar jobs like programmers are treated differently, no one cares if you get high, unless you work for the govt. Your work is what matters.
People are already ruining their lives with heroin. Part of the reason that this happens is because getting back on the straight and narrow is almost impossible when the police, the courts, the doctors (Under orders by the courts), and society is against you.
if someone wants to retreat into a bottomless void to avoid daily life - they can do it in any manner of way. Alcohol is arguably easier to fall and a damn sight harder to get away from. And booze will KILL you.
Weed may ruin your social life and career but booze can literally kill you and people around you.
It still boils down to what rights the government has to legislate something like this based on poor choices of a few individuals.
Besides lets not pretend there's any reason its illegal any more except for pharma, booze, casinos and probably cigarette mfgers
I agree with you one hundred percent, but I think it should be a person's own decision to wreck their life in such a way and not get punished or locked up for it by the government.
It's definitely a vice I think but vices can have positive benefits. Social alcohol consumption, stress management, the positive medical side effects of marijuana, etc. At its core, I think we've seen as a society that making it illegal is not good policy and we're better off legalizing and taxing it.
>I know I am in minority here, but I believe cannabis is not good for society and for individuals using it.
That's probably true, but it's not really relevant. There are downsides to making something illegal, so the question really is whether the harm the pot does is greater than the harm of criminalization.
At this point it's difficult for me to see that balance coming down on the side of prohibition.
You shouldn't be getting downvoted here because of your opinion. I hate that this place is becoming more and more like reddit because of abuse of the voting system.
Ending the 'war on drugs' would be an instant improvement in the lives of large numbers of Americans.