5 ms·

That's a horrible reason. No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever cha

That's a horrible reason. No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever change. I find it very disheartening that some of the very people who want this change the most refused to vote for a 90% solution in the hopes that someone will come along with a 100% solution tomorrow. With this setback, the issue won't come up again for many years, and even when it does it STILL won't be perfect. I just hope that in 10 years when it comes up again, people won't be going "I voted no because it's not perfect" and setting the process back ANOTHER 10 years.

cabalamat 16y ago
> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it. In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.
      - cabalamat 16y ago
        > Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects Because as well as the bad effects, the law might also have good effects, i.e. be a net improvement. Most policy proposals have some potential bad side effects -- if they didn't, people would already be doing them. So if a policy appears to be net-positive, it is probably worth supporting. > rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? If a referendum fails, it may make it less likely that a better designed law will come along later. This is IMO the case for the referendum on electoral reform that will be held in the UK next May -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote...
tptacek 16y ago
Just because Paul Buchheit says it's a horrible reason doesn't make it actually a horrible reason. In reality, the particulars of the law matter, a lot. And, in particular, this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence, and almost certainly would have caused hundreds of employers to end up in frivolous lawsuits. It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks. The second-order effects were even worse; companies in California are entangled in a web of business relationships that require drug-free workplaces --- FedGov is the most obvious example, but every investment bank in the world has a similar requirement --- all of which would have been thrown into chaos by this measure. And why? To keep people from getting fired for something that currently gets people incarcerated. A step in the right direction is exactly what this measure wasn't. The campaign for legalization could have written a minimalist bill. They could have waited 2 years for a more favorable election cycle. They did neither, choosing instead to walk into a buzzsaw. Don't blame the bill's opponents for this incompetence.
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence" Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.
  - adolph 16y ago
    Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-1020-lopezcolumn-20101018 http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-10...
    - Alex3917 16y ago
      http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#...
krschultz 16y ago
I agree with something like healthcare or financial reform, but not here. If we have a crappy law and it creates a bunch of talking points for the opposition, that is worse than no law. The CA law will be open for repeal and other states will be less likely to pass the law. If CA passed a good law, had a good result over the next 10 years, proponents elsewhere can point to CA as a model example of what will happen. Any law to legalize pot has to 1) Increase tax revenue 2) Reduce crime related to drugs (especially violent crime) 3) Effectively penalize those that endager others 4) Effectively regulate the industry so that the supply is safe

cabalamat 16y ago

> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it. In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.

tptacek 16y ago
I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?
- cabalamat 16y ago
  My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      > Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects Because as well as the bad effects, the law might also have good effects, i.e. be a net improvement. Most policy proposals have some potential bad side effects -- if they didn't, people would already be doing them. So if a policy appears to be net-positive, it is probably worth supporting. > rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? If a referendum fails, it may make it less likely that a better designed law will come along later. This is IMO the case for the referendum on electoral reform that will be held in the UK next May -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote...

tptacek 16y ago

Just because Paul Buchheit says it's a horrible reason doesn't make it actually a horrible reason. In reality, the particulars of the law matter, a lot. And, in particular, this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence, and almost certainly would have caused hundreds of employers to end up in frivolous lawsuits. It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks. The second-order effects were even worse; companies in California are entangled in a web of business relationships that require drug-free workplaces --- FedGov is the most obvious example, but every investment bank in the world has a similar requirement --- all of which would have been thrown into chaos by this measure. And why? To keep people from getting fired for something that currently gets people incarcerated. A step in the right direction is exactly what this measure wasn't. The campaign for legalization could have written a minimalist bill. They could have waited 2 years for a more favorable election cycle. They did neither, choosing instead to walk into a buzzsaw. Don't blame the bill's opponents for this incompetence.

Alex3917 16y ago
"this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence" Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.
- adolph 16y ago
  Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-1020-lopezcolumn-20101018 http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/oct/20/local/la-me-10...
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#Effects_on_driving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_cannabis#...

krschultz 16y ago

I agree with something like healthcare or financial reform, but not here. If we have a crappy law and it creates a bunch of talking points for the opposition, that is worse than no law. The CA law will be open for repeal and other states will be less likely to pass the law. If CA passed a good law, had a good result over the next 10 years, proponents elsewhere can point to CA as a model example of what will happen. Any law to legalize pot has to 1) Increase tax revenue 2) Reduce crime related to drugs (especially violent crime) 3) Effectively penalize those that endager others 4) Effectively regulate the industry so that the supply is safe