7 ms·

Actually the opposite. Government regulations outlaw cheap non-dangerous alternatives (like cannabis) and create a monopoly by granting patents to a single enti

Actually the opposite. Government regulations outlaw cheap non-dangerous alternatives (like cannabis) and create a monopoly by granting patents to a single entity. https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-advantage-of-patent-law-to-keep-oxycontin-from-ever-dying/ https://qz.com/1125690/big-pharma-is-taking-advantage-of-pat... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/outdated-treatments-and-drug-company-monopolies-make-opioid-epidemic-worse/article/2611739 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/outdated-treatments-and-dr... The solution is to make cannabis legal for everybody in every state for medical use and since it cannot be patented there will be many suppliers who compete with the quality and price just like it happens with almost everything that is not under very strict government regulation.

vanderZwan 9y ago
> Actually the opposite. Government regulations... I'm from the Netherlands so you won't hear me disagree with the argument that criminalizing cannabis and drugs is not the solution[0]. Having said that, the typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" really irks me. I can imagine that if the only perspective one has is a dysfunctional government, one might think that, but please take a look abroad and see how things work over there. Government regulations are a tool that can be used for good and bad. [0] Also, in the US these laws are historically very much set up to target poor and black people (and I wish I had a clear picture of how things are in my own country regarding that, actually; I'm sure there's a few laws sneakily screwing over migrant workers or something), but I digress.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Not really typical, we are very diverse people with very different opinions. What is your argument? Who said government regulations cannot be good and bad? Anything about the subject?
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    You were responding to someone arguing that this is a byproduct of giving capitalism free, uninhibited reign (paraphrasing). You are arguing that the cause is government regulation, and that this is the opposite. Apologies for misinterpreting if this was not your intent, but based on what I just wrote, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret that message as implying that regulation is bad in general.
- dopamean 9y ago
  And are hardly solely responsible for the opioid crisis as StreamBright suggests. Of course government could have done something to avoid this, however, they'd likely be criticized for putting forth regulations that stifle innovation and hurt businesses. StreamBright's definitely not wrong though that the prohibition of weed has exacerbated the problem.
- jacob019 9y ago
  I've always observed that HN leans pro-regulation.
  - ataturk 9y ago
    The problem isn't the regulation per se, it's the militarized police kicking in doors and murdering people, the violent gangs that murder people, the cartels, and all the social chaos around all the above--ruined families, kids without functioning parents, car crashes, lost jobs, all of it. I can't just say "legalize it all" but at this point what makes anyone think total legalization would actually be worse?
  - hathawsh 9y ago
    IMHO there is a strong slant in both directions. Even HN is not immune from the current political stratification in the US.
  - oreo81 9y ago
    They are, HN is very liberal. That's why bitcoin catches so much hate around here.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    As I commented elsewhere, I got a lot of upvotes for complaining about the deregulation-bias, which supports your observation.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  America has plenty of successful examples of government programs; the problem is ideological blinders rather than a uniquely ineffectual government.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I think there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a uniquely ineffectual government. Excluding defense expenditures, and counting all levels of government, Canada spends less public money per capita, while having cheaper healthcare, education, better transit, etc. For example, we spend more per capita on education than any OECD country except Switzerland, and get worse results. Our federal system (where states aren’t mere administrative bodies taking direction from the central government) makes things particularly difficult. Which means the aspects of government closest to the people (roads, schools, housing, transit) are often the worst managed.
    - Merad 9y ago
      Bad government in the US is a self fulfilling prophecy and has been for close to half a century.
    - BurningFrog 9y ago
      Of course, looking only at OECD countries is serious cherry picking good governments to begin with.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        But not really unreasonable in context; how much can a comparison with Equatorial Guinea really tell us about US policy?
    - harryh 9y ago
      I think you are on to something looking at state governments but I don't find the answer completely satisfying because a lot of US States are similarly sized to European countries. Why should we expect the State of NY (~20M people) to have a worse government than the Netherlands (~17M people)? I don't have a great answer to this question. Perhaps it's just the separation of government in general. People can only pay attention to so much and the attraction of national politics pulls attention away from state politics. That's just not something that happens in many other places.
- junkscience2017 9y ago
  you may be recalling a Hacker News from another era...at this point it is mostly aging software developers bemoaning change and harumphing most everything. there might be a forum for legitimate hackers who are genuinely stymied by government regulation, but HN isn't it, at least not anymore YC itself isn't much of a change agent anymore either, it has devolved into a private club for people who won in Silicon Valley
- kbenson 9y ago
  > Having said that, the typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" really irks me. I think you just notice that undertone more because of your predisposition. I notice just as many pro regulation as anti regulation comments, and I think of myself as a capitalism moderate (since there are negative externalities that do not get included in the price, regulations act as corrective measures to move markets slightly in the direction they would be if those were included correctly, at least when done well).
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    The empirical evidence speaks in your favor, since I fully expected my remark to be downed, but instead now see a lot of supportive votes. Mea culpa, I blame negativity bias[0]. US-centric thinking annoys me in a "don't be short-sighted" way (Eurocentric thinking too, but I have more blind spots there), and as a European, the "neutral" position for regulation is probably far more on the regulation side of things (just like how the "neutral" political leaning being very left compared to the US, for that matter). I also suspect that hathawsh comment elsewhere is right about discourse taking more extreme positions in general, although I doubt the polarization in the US is the lone cause. Stronger opinions are always more vocal, so it is the nature of the internet, and public discourse in general to show apparent extremities within public opinion[1]. [0] perception bias where negative experiences, which includes annoyances, are given more weight, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias [1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939
- coliveira 9y ago
  > typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" This is pure ancap, "Austrian school" ideology. They define regulation as bad by definition, because supposedly it goes against "freedom". This works as a clutch so that if you say anything bad against capitalism they will retort "it is regulation", even thought nobody ever saw (and never will see) an economic system without laws and regulations.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Well, you can't just blame capitalism for problems happening with government granted monopolies. You must at a minimum get some evidence that it isn't the monopoly causing the problem. And because modern economies are to a large part composed of government granted monopolies, with almost all problems being in that part¹, nearly all "capitalism is bad" commentary is simply bullshit. 1 - Both governments tend to grant monopolies on problematic areas, and anything that a government grant a monopoly on becomes problematic. So, it can hardly be different.
    - coliveira 9y ago
      The BS of this argument is to believe the governments would grant monopolies to random people for no reason. The reason there are monopolies is that capitalists have paid for this privilege, therefore they arise as a result of capital trying to starve competition, as it normally does by several means. The government in this case is simply another tool used by capitalists to keep their privileged position in the markets, not the "source of all evil" as ancaps want naive people to believe. Capitalism and monopolies are just facets of the same thing.
- Noos 9y ago
  What irks me is how people on the one hand believe that you can't trust companies like Google or Facebook over moderate things, and say "we need federated, decentralized alternatives," and yet when it comes to government (apart from their own pet issues) we magically trust powerful bodies with even less accountability with more important things. I wish there'd be some consistency.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
I don't know, dude. If you are talking of using camnnabis for medical use, I'm gonna want a dosage guideline and strength/purity promises. I'm pretty sure for medical use, it will more closely resemble ibuprofen or cough medicine if it is without prescription. With prescription it'll be more like generics. It might still be a monopoly, since these drugs have to go through all the FDA testing. Heck, if you want fluoride in your toothpaste you have to go through animal testing - same for menthol in cough drops. I don't know why folks think it should be different for medical cannabis, though some folks will just use their own supply instead. Outside of medical use, I'll guess it'll be regulated much like alcohol or tobacco. These aren't exactly lightly regulated either, though it is a much easier market to break into. Besides, there is lots to patent. Hybrid plants, GMO plants, extraction methods for pills. Brands will be a thing, I'd think. And it doesn't mean all the other stuff won't be necessary - pot isn't a cure all, though should be an option in the arsenal. Folks will still make their money, I think.
- ams6110 9y ago
  It's a freaking plant. Why should it be more regulated than parsley?
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    So's digitalis.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Because "it's a freaking plant" doesn't address the full scope of properties. Opium and poison sumac are plants. Should it be legal to sell both for smoking, or mix them in with other goods entirely unregulated?
  - Broken_Hippo 9y ago
    For the same reasons we want tobacco regulated, alcohol regulated, some food regulated, and drugs regulated. The fact is that it isn't parsley, nor does it have similar effect on our body. While consuming too much might not kill you, getting to work and finding that your supposedly non-high-bringing cannabis-based pain reliever certainly made you high isn't the sort of thing one wants to find. Alternatively for recreational use, I want what the thing says on the package and would be horribly angry if I wound up with the other dude's non-high-bringing smoke. I want my "weaker" strain to be just that, just like I'd not appreciate finding out my beer/wine/whiskey is stronger than is on the package.
DanBC 9y ago
Other countries without legal cannabis haven't had the same problem with opioid medication.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Did they have the same regulation like the US? No? I guess you are trying to prove my point. :)
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Cannabis in the UK is a class B drug. Possession with intent to supply carries a posible 14 year prison sentence. Possession alone has a maximum 5 year sentence, although for an uncomplicated first offence the fine would be a band B fine (100% of weekly income). https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Drug_Offences_Definitive_Guideline_final_web1.pdf https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Drug...
dredmorbius 9y ago
We had a system with no regulations over drugs. It went poorly. https://archive.org/details/jungle00sinc https://archive.org/details/jungle00sinc The correct response to bad regulation isn't no regulation but GOOD REGULATION. There have been similar circumstances as concern snake oil, opium, cocaine, radium, asbestos, lead, safety belts, air bags, ABS, screw and nut sizes, fire exits (and suppression equipment, and risk mitigation, and alarms -- look up the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory some time), and Jim Crow, and poll taxes, and "separate but equal", and CFCs, and C02, and .... But I think I've made my point.
unabst 9y ago
Opposite of what? I agree with legalization. And with a freer market for growers and sellers and entrepreneurs. Our government is plenty sinister too. And government is actually "people".
specialist 9y ago
Because regulatory capture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture When you say "government", I hear "of the people, by the people, for the people". When you say "regulation", I hear "market protections", eg property rights, fair & impartial courts, rule of law. In other words, no regulation means no market. My sole notion (so far) for a more fair society is some sort of balance of power, modeled after our constitution (executive vs legislative vs courts), where regulations somehow have a third pillar. So instead of just us vs them, like government vs business, there's a third seat at the table. Like maybe producers, consumers & regulators, where the consumers have equal voice.

vanderZwan 9y ago

> Actually the opposite. Government regulations... I'm from the Netherlands so you won't hear me disagree with the argument that criminalizing cannabis and drugs is not the solution[0]. Having said that, the typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" really irks me. I can imagine that if the only perspective one has is a dysfunctional government, one might think that, but please take a look abroad and see how things work over there. Government regulations are a tool that can be used for good and bad. [0] Also, in the US these laws are historically very much set up to target poor and black people (and I wish I had a clear picture of how things are in my own country regarding that, actually; I'm sure there's a few laws sneakily screwing over migrant workers or something), but I digress.

StreamBright 9y ago
Not really typical, we are very diverse people with very different opinions. What is your argument? Who said government regulations cannot be good and bad? Anything about the subject?
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  You were responding to someone arguing that this is a byproduct of giving capitalism free, uninhibited reign (paraphrasing). You are arguing that the cause is government regulation, and that this is the opposite. Apologies for misinterpreting if this was not your intent, but based on what I just wrote, I don't think it's a stretch to interpret that message as implying that regulation is bad in general.
dopamean 9y ago
And are hardly solely responsible for the opioid crisis as StreamBright suggests. Of course government could have done something to avoid this, however, they'd likely be criticized for putting forth regulations that stifle innovation and hurt businesses. StreamBright's definitely not wrong though that the prohibition of weed has exacerbated the problem.
jacob019 9y ago
I've always observed that HN leans pro-regulation.
- ataturk 9y ago
  The problem isn't the regulation per se, it's the militarized police kicking in doors and murdering people, the violent gangs that murder people, the cartels, and all the social chaos around all the above--ruined families, kids without functioning parents, car crashes, lost jobs, all of it. I can't just say "legalize it all" but at this point what makes anyone think total legalization would actually be worse?
- hathawsh 9y ago
  IMHO there is a strong slant in both directions. Even HN is not immune from the current political stratification in the US.
- oreo81 9y ago
  They are, HN is very liberal. That's why bitcoin catches so much hate around here.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  As I commented elsewhere, I got a lot of upvotes for complaining about the deregulation-bias, which supports your observation.
emodendroket 9y ago
America has plenty of successful examples of government programs; the problem is ideological blinders rather than a uniquely ineffectual government.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I think there is a lot of reason to believe that we have a uniquely ineffectual government. Excluding defense expenditures, and counting all levels of government, Canada spends less public money per capita, while having cheaper healthcare, education, better transit, etc. For example, we spend more per capita on education than any OECD country except Switzerland, and get worse results. Our federal system (where states aren’t mere administrative bodies taking direction from the central government) makes things particularly difficult. Which means the aspects of government closest to the people (roads, schools, housing, transit) are often the worst managed.
  - Merad 9y ago
    Bad government in the US is a self fulfilling prophecy and has been for close to half a century.
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    Of course, looking only at OECD countries is serious cherry picking good governments to begin with.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      But not really unreasonable in context; how much can a comparison with Equatorial Guinea really tell us about US policy?
  - harryh 9y ago
    I think you are on to something looking at state governments but I don't find the answer completely satisfying because a lot of US States are similarly sized to European countries. Why should we expect the State of NY (~20M people) to have a worse government than the Netherlands (~17M people)? I don't have a great answer to this question. Perhaps it's just the separation of government in general. People can only pay attention to so much and the attraction of national politics pulls attention away from state politics. That's just not something that happens in many other places.
junkscience2017 9y ago
you may be recalling a Hacker News from another era...at this point it is mostly aging software developers bemoaning change and harumphing most everything. there might be a forum for legitimate hackers who are genuinely stymied by government regulation, but HN isn't it, at least not anymore YC itself isn't much of a change agent anymore either, it has devolved into a private club for people who won in Silicon Valley
kbenson 9y ago
> Having said that, the typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" really irks me. I think you just notice that undertone more because of your predisposition. I notice just as many pro regulation as anti regulation comments, and I think of myself as a capitalism moderate (since there are negative externalities that do not get included in the price, regulations act as corrective measures to move markets slightly in the direction they would be if those were included correctly, at least when done well).
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  The empirical evidence speaks in your favor, since I fully expected my remark to be downed, but instead now see a lot of supportive votes. Mea culpa, I blame negativity bias[0]. US-centric thinking annoys me in a "don't be short-sighted" way (Eurocentric thinking too, but I have more blind spots there), and as a European, the "neutral" position for regulation is probably far more on the regulation side of things (just like how the "neutral" political leaning being very left compared to the US, for that matter). I also suspect that hathawsh comment elsewhere is right about discourse taking more extreme positions in general, although I doubt the polarization in the US is the lone cause. Stronger opinions are always more vocal, so it is the nature of the internet, and public discourse in general to show apparent extremities within public opinion[1]. [0] perception bias where negative experiences, which includes annoyances, are given more weight, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias [1] https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939
coliveira 9y ago
> typical undertone on HN of "regulation is bad by definition" This is pure ancap, "Austrian school" ideology. They define regulation as bad by definition, because supposedly it goes against "freedom". This works as a clutch so that if you say anything bad against capitalism they will retort "it is regulation", even thought nobody ever saw (and never will see) an economic system without laws and regulations.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Well, you can't just blame capitalism for problems happening with government granted monopolies. You must at a minimum get some evidence that it isn't the monopoly causing the problem. And because modern economies are to a large part composed of government granted monopolies, with almost all problems being in that part¹, nearly all "capitalism is bad" commentary is simply bullshit. 1 - Both governments tend to grant monopolies on problematic areas, and anything that a government grant a monopoly on becomes problematic. So, it can hardly be different.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    The BS of this argument is to believe the governments would grant monopolies to random people for no reason. The reason there are monopolies is that capitalists have paid for this privilege, therefore they arise as a result of capital trying to starve competition, as it normally does by several means. The government in this case is simply another tool used by capitalists to keep their privileged position in the markets, not the "source of all evil" as ancaps want naive people to believe. Capitalism and monopolies are just facets of the same thing.
Noos 9y ago
What irks me is how people on the one hand believe that you can't trust companies like Google or Facebook over moderate things, and say "we need federated, decentralized alternatives," and yet when it comes to government (apart from their own pet issues) we magically trust powerful bodies with even less accountability with more important things. I wish there'd be some consistency.

Broken_Hippo 9y ago

I don't know, dude. If you are talking of using camnnabis for medical use, I'm gonna want a dosage guideline and strength/purity promises. I'm pretty sure for medical use, it will more closely resemble ibuprofen or cough medicine if it is without prescription. With prescription it'll be more like generics. It might still be a monopoly, since these drugs have to go through all the FDA testing. Heck, if you want fluoride in your toothpaste you have to go through animal testing - same for menthol in cough drops. I don't know why folks think it should be different for medical cannabis, though some folks will just use their own supply instead. Outside of medical use, I'll guess it'll be regulated much like alcohol or tobacco. These aren't exactly lightly regulated either, though it is a much easier market to break into. Besides, there is lots to patent. Hybrid plants, GMO plants, extraction methods for pills. Brands will be a thing, I'd think. And it doesn't mean all the other stuff won't be necessary - pot isn't a cure all, though should be an option in the arsenal. Folks will still make their money, I think.

ams6110 9y ago
It's a freaking plant. Why should it be more regulated than parsley?
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  So's digitalis.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Because "it's a freaking plant" doesn't address the full scope of properties. Opium and poison sumac are plants. Should it be legal to sell both for smoking, or mix them in with other goods entirely unregulated?
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  For the same reasons we want tobacco regulated, alcohol regulated, some food regulated, and drugs regulated. The fact is that it isn't parsley, nor does it have similar effect on our body. While consuming too much might not kill you, getting to work and finding that your supposedly non-high-bringing cannabis-based pain reliever certainly made you high isn't the sort of thing one wants to find. Alternatively for recreational use, I want what the thing says on the package and would be horribly angry if I wound up with the other dude's non-high-bringing smoke. I want my "weaker" strain to be just that, just like I'd not appreciate finding out my beer/wine/whiskey is stronger than is on the package.

DanBC 9y ago

Other countries without legal cannabis haven't had the same problem with opioid medication.

StreamBright 9y ago
Did they have the same regulation like the US? No? I guess you are trying to prove my point. :)
- DanBC 9y ago
  Cannabis in the UK is a class B drug. Possession with intent to supply carries a posible 14 year prison sentence. Possession alone has a maximum 5 year sentence, although for an uncomplicated first offence the fine would be a band B fine (100% of weekly income). https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Drug_Offences_Definitive_Guideline_final_web1.pdf https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Drug...

dredmorbius 9y ago

We had a system with no regulations over drugs. It went poorly. https://archive.org/details/jungle00sinc https://archive.org/details/jungle00sinc The correct response to bad regulation isn't no regulation but GOOD REGULATION. There have been similar circumstances as concern snake oil, opium, cocaine, radium, asbestos, lead, safety belts, air bags, ABS, screw and nut sizes, fire exits (and suppression equipment, and risk mitigation, and alarms -- look up the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory some time), and Jim Crow, and poll taxes, and "separate but equal", and CFCs, and C02, and .... But I think I've made my point.

unabst 9y ago

Opposite of what? I agree with legalization. And with a freer market for growers and sellers and entrepreneurs. Our government is plenty sinister too. And government is actually "people".

specialist 9y ago

Because regulatory capture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture When you say "government", I hear "of the people, by the people, for the people". When you say "regulation", I hear "market protections", eg property rights, fair & impartial courts, rule of law. In other words, no regulation means no market. My sole notion (so far) for a more fair society is some sort of balance of power, modeled after our constitution (executive vs legislative vs courts), where regulations somehow have a third pillar. So instead of just us vs them, like government vs business, there's a third seat at the table. Like maybe producers, consumers & regulators, where the consumers have equal voice.