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.
Absolutely true. It's a common misconception that the drinking age in the US is 21; federal law mandates that states outlaw the sale of alcohol to those under 21, but states have varying laws regarding the consumption of alcohol by minors.
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.
I think the inference is supposed to be "Look, this well-off, exceptionally productive (in a monetary sense) member of society supports marijuana legalization. It isn't just a bunch of layabout potheads and criminals!"
I don't think it would, because that would be unsurprising. There isn't any perception that the only people who oppose the law are potheads and criminals. When you're busting a stereotype, showing that people who never fell under the stereotype also don't fit it isn't very enlightening.
When campaign money is considered free speech, then yes, some people have more than others. Opinions are more valuable when they can influence others. You can go door-to-door and reason with everyone you meet, or you can buy advertising space and ram it down their throats - which is more efficient when you only need a majority.
Yeah, I'm afraid I really don't see the relevance. I'm sure he also has opinions on Roe vs Wade, Bush vs Gore, Coke vs Pepsi and who should have won America's Next Top Model, but I don't see the relevance, and am concerned that some people may be upvoting the story just because they agree with this particular proposition.