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.
I got that here:
Which may of course be out of date.
Right, I'll just leave it at that.
19 states allow it
15 ban it completely
the rest have exceptions for location and family members
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.
No, but currently in our society, for better or worse, his status as a celebrity sure does.
Sounds interesting, but what's wrong with their web pages? Both Chrome and Safari seem to cut the bottom part of the text.
There's even a comment:
I assure you, we typically write nicer code than this. This is git-it-done hacktown. -jr
Maybe one of these days someone will succeed in this space. It would be nice.
I would say most people really don't care if an innocent person is in jail. But they do care if someone they consider a threat is let out because someone they don't consider a threat is taking up a spot.
Remember you're not dealing with rational beings, you're dealing with voters.
- 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.
If it helps the cause, then use it, but I think most of it just confuses the issue, and opens it up to more fallacious counter-arguments. If we argue that certain unethical things should be stopped because they are impractical, then what do we say about the ones that are practical?
Rarely mentioned is the cost to law enforcement, in lives.
How many police officers have died fighting with criminals over pot? Cannabis should be legal, no one needs to die over it.
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?
Overcrowding can be a good argument because it basically argues that whatever social ill the marijuana prohibition aims to cure is not worth the cost of keeping all these people in jail.