3 ms·

I think it boils down to a lot of our politicians being old, scared of being perceived as weak on crime, and some pretty heavy lobbying efforts by tobacco and a

I think it boils down to a lot of our politicians being old, scared of being perceived as weak on crime, and some pretty heavy lobbying efforts by tobacco and alcohol companies. I'm sure the DEA is fighting it as hard as they can too. Same with the police union lobby. I do think it'll happen in the near term, probably faster than people expect just like with gay marriage. Though I also think there will be a few holdout states.

pmoriarty 5y ago
"I think it boils down to a lot of our politicians being old, scared of being perceived as weak on crime, and some pretty heavy lobbying efforts by tobacco and alcohol companies." It's not just that. A lot of people, including politicians, truly bought in to a lot of the anti-drug propaganda.. and many of them are also in religions which consider drug use sinful. For many of them, their opposition to drugs comes from the same sources as their opposition to gay marriage and abortion: their churches and religious leaders. What's been incredibly interesting, however, is how their attitudes have been changing once people started to become aware how helpful psychedelics and cannabis can be... to mental and physical health, and to spirituality. Lots of people are hurting, and the medical and mental health establishments have failed so many people. Even church prohibitions are having a hard time standing up to that, especially if they have a sherd of compassion for those suffering and those than can be helped with these unjustly illegal substances.
godelski 5y ago
I think so too but it also serves as a show of how disconnected politics often is from public opinion. IMO, in a democracy, if public opinion is strongly in favor of something (and there's not clear evidence that that thing is just plane dumb, which we can vet by asking experts), then it is the politicians duty to implement that thing. Yes, they should serve as a safety net (vetting with experts) but they should not impede progress. (In fact, I'll say that they should often ask experts and implement things that are not "widely" popular, but at least mildly popular, if experts think it is a good idea. Which is very clear in the case of drugs. We've got lots of evidence)
- api 5y ago
  Our politicians are very old and seem to have stopped updating their world views long ago (some older people keep learning and changing but it seems most do not). Their views are consistent with public opinion 50 years ago on many issues.
bagacrap 5y ago
I had assumed big tobacco and alcohol companies were ready to step in and crush all these mom and pop weed ops the second we had federal legalization. Especially tobacco since cigarette usage is on the decline.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
  I think it's harder than you might assume for big businesses to move into new business areas, especially if it requires cannibalizing their existing revenue streams. That's a story we've seen over and over right? Big businesses today tend to not innovate themselves and instead expand into new markets via acquisitions, but how many pot business owners do you think are interested in selling to those megacorps vs running their own show and continuing to make bank?

pmoriarty 5y ago

"I think it boils down to a lot of our politicians being old, scared of being perceived as weak on crime, and some pretty heavy lobbying efforts by tobacco and alcohol companies." It's not just that. A lot of people, including politicians, truly bought in to a lot of the anti-drug propaganda.. and many of them are also in religions which consider drug use sinful. For many of them, their opposition to drugs comes from the same sources as their opposition to gay marriage and abortion: their churches and religious leaders. What's been incredibly interesting, however, is how their attitudes have been changing once people started to become aware how helpful psychedelics and cannabis can be... to mental and physical health, and to spirituality. Lots of people are hurting, and the medical and mental health establishments have failed so many people. Even church prohibitions are having a hard time standing up to that, especially if they have a sherd of compassion for those suffering and those than can be helped with these unjustly illegal substances.

godelski 5y ago

I think so too but it also serves as a show of how disconnected politics often is from public opinion. IMO, in a democracy, if public opinion is strongly in favor of something (and there's not clear evidence that that thing is just plane dumb, which we can vet by asking experts), then it is the politicians duty to implement that thing. Yes, they should serve as a safety net (vetting with experts) but they should not impede progress. (In fact, I'll say that they should often ask experts and implement things that are not "widely" popular, but at least mildly popular, if experts think it is a good idea. Which is very clear in the case of drugs. We've got lots of evidence)

api 5y ago
Our politicians are very old and seem to have stopped updating their world views long ago (some older people keep learning and changing but it seems most do not). Their views are consistent with public opinion 50 years ago on many issues.

bagacrap 5y ago

I had assumed big tobacco and alcohol companies were ready to step in and crush all these mom and pop weed ops the second we had federal legalization. Especially tobacco since cigarette usage is on the decline.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
I think it's harder than you might assume for big businesses to move into new business areas, especially if it requires cannibalizing their existing revenue streams. That's a story we've seen over and over right? Big businesses today tend to not innovate themselves and instead expand into new markets via acquisitions, but how many pot business owners do you think are interested in selling to those megacorps vs running their own show and continuing to make bank?