4 ms·

These are nice thoughts, but you're brutally oversimplifying a lot of things. > (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done. Well, we have them aro

These are nice thoughts, but you're brutally oversimplifying a lot of things. > (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done. Well, we have them around alcohol - and around tons of other things - mostly so people can't do things like advertise cigarettes on kids' shows, etc. And there definitely should be - I'm perfectly happy that cigarettes have to have health warnings attached, and I think marijuana should too. > Release them. They broke the (unjust) law as it then stood, so they don't get reparations. Done. Nice thought. Completely unworkable in practice. There's a lot of logistics involved in releasing at least six thousand prisoners [1] at once. > Of course it's legal to sell. What business of the State is it if one citizen wishes to sell something to another citizen? Done. Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology? Customers' private data? Lots of things are illegal to sell, for good reason. > If a private business wishes to permit its customers to consume something on its premises, why does the State have to get involved? Done. For the same reason the State has to get involved and mandate no-smoking zones (though I'll admit those are controversial and frequently challenged). > This is just the intoxication question again, and again there is already a system in place. Done. There's not 'already a system in place' - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one. > What business of a State are another State's laws? Why should marijuana be any different from any other intoxicating substance at all? Done. Well, it doesn't matter what each individual state's laws are, sure - but all of them will need to decide on laws, which is a massive undertaking. > Why does the State have to grasp for every bit of power? Just let it go! Done. So if something comes round that's basically pot, but also sometimes causes instant death in people who take it, we should allow its sellers to operate under our marijuana legislation? And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation? > Why should it be any different than any other seed. Done. This ignores the fact that other seeds took shitloads of work to legislate [2]. And it's still an active debate. I mean, overall, I agree with your sentiment - we're not helping anyone by leaving it in this gray area. But saying it'll be easy is willfully ignorant. [1]: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library/gerald1-e.htm http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/371/ille/library... [2]: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1400/ http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._14...

pyre 11y ago
I think the real issue here is the idea that we need to check each and every one of these boxes before pot is legal. We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous. > So if something comes round that's basically pot, but also sometimes causes instant death in people who take it, we should allow its sellers to operate under our marijuana legislation? And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation? e-cigs, vaping, etc. The same thing comes up with cigarette-derivatives, yet we don't ban cigarettes (and throw all cigarette users in jail) until there are laws in place covering all contingencies.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous [sic]. Heck, we didn't originally allow alcohol and cigarettes to be sold: they just were. In the state of nature, any free man is free to sell whatever he wants to any other free man. Is that really such a bad situation? Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing?
  - pyre 11y ago
    > Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing? Well, snake oil salesmen for one.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
> There's a lot of logistics involved in releasing at least six thousand prisoners [1] at once. So stagger the releases by compressing their remaining sentence from n years into n weeks, truncating at a sensible maximum. And in the meantime unlock their jail cells, permit food delivery, and let them chill.
zeveb 11y ago
> > (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done. > Well, we have them around alcohol - and around tons of other things - mostly so people can't do things like advertise cigarettes on kids' shows, etc. Surely it's parents' responsibility what their children watch? Some parents don't want their children to see pink-princess adverts; should those be banned too? > Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology? Both should be, yes. > Customers' private data? That's a matter for private contracts. > There's not 'already a system in place' - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one. That's the beauty of the jury system: 'ladies and gentlemen of approximately the same social class and status of the defendant, these witnesses state that he was intoxicated, for these reasons and with this evidence. How decide you?' > And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation? Why do you need legislation? The default state of things is for them to be legal: there's no law allowing my colleagues to bring food into the office to celebrate Christmas; there's no law allowing my to purchase trousers; there's no law in place permitting you to drink water; why should marijuana, heroin or hand grenades be any different? Just let it go! > This ignores the fact that other seeds took shitloads of work to legislate. And yet somehow life before the Canadian seed regulations still went on. Maybe they improve things (maybe). But maybe it's just busywork for politicians which enables busywork and patronage for civil servants and regulatory capture by industry.

pyre 11y ago

I think the real issue here is the idea that we need to check each and every one of these boxes before pot is legal. We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous. > So if something comes round that's basically pot, but also sometimes causes instant death in people who take it, we should allow its sellers to operate under our marijuana legislation? And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation? e-cigs, vaping, etc. The same thing comes up with cigarette-derivatives, yet we don't ban cigarettes (and throw all cigarette users in jail) until there are laws in place covering all contingencies.

zeveb 11y ago
> We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous [sic]. Heck, we didn't originally allow alcohol and cigarettes to be sold: they just were. In the state of nature, any free man is free to sell whatever he wants to any other free man. Is that really such a bad situation? Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing?
- pyre 11y ago
  > Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing? Well, snake oil salesmen for one.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

> There's a lot of logistics involved in releasing at least six thousand prisoners [1] at once. So stagger the releases by compressing their remaining sentence from n years into n weeks, truncating at a sensible maximum. And in the meantime unlock their jail cells, permit food delivery, and let them chill.

zeveb 11y ago

> > (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done. > Well, we have them around alcohol - and around tons of other things - mostly so people can't do things like advertise cigarettes on kids' shows, etc. Surely it's parents' responsibility what their children watch? Some parents don't want their children to see pink-princess adverts; should those be banned too? > Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology? Both should be, yes. > Customers' private data? That's a matter for private contracts. > There's not 'already a system in place' - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one. That's the beauty of the jury system: 'ladies and gentlemen of approximately the same social class and status of the defendant, these witnesses state that he was intoxicated, for these reasons and with this evidence. How decide you?' > And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation? Why do you need legislation? The default state of things is for them to be legal: there's no law allowing my colleagues to bring food into the office to celebrate Christmas; there's no law allowing my to purchase trousers; there's no law in place permitting you to drink water; why should marijuana, heroin or hand grenades be any different? Just let it go! > This ignores the fact that other seeds took shitloads of work to legislate. And yet somehow life before the Canadian seed regulations still went on. Maybe they improve things (maybe). But maybe it's just busywork for politicians which enables busywork and patronage for civil servants and regulatory capture by industry.