5 ms·

74% of states have legalized medicinal use. 42% of states have legalized recreational use. Legalization lags public sentiment but not hugely, especially if li

74% of states have legalized medicinal use. 42% of states have legalized recreational use. Legalization lags public sentiment but not hugely, especially if like you alluded to, weighting by voter participation. Politicians will take easy wins all day long.

zamadatix 3y ago
As the article and above comment allude, the states do not currently have enough authority for legalization at the state level to be meaningful in many contexts. Until the federal level restrictions are removed it doesn't matter if 100% of states legalize it for recreational use, many of the problems still exist.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Meaningful enough that whole businesses have been based on it. The trouble with payment processing isn't equivalent to legality. See adult entertainment.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Meaningful enough that whole businesses have been based on it. What's the highest valuation of any of those companies? Now what percentage of MasterCard's current 380 billion market cap or Visa's 485 billion market cap is that? There's other factors with porn at play that have been discussed. But yeah, I don't think a multi-hundred billion dollar company is going to risk having all its assets seized for engaging in activities that are considered illegal by the federal government. Small companies can take this risk. These aren't the same.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      > What's the highest valuation of any of those companies? Green Thumb Industries. [1] Current market cap $1.6 billion. [2] Look, you're right: the federal prohibition definitely has consequences. But also, there are 8 and 9-figure companies operating in this space. [1] https://www.gtigrows.com/ https://www.gtigrows.com/ [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTBIF https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTBIF
      - godelski 3y ago
        Honestly that figure makes the argument of legalization more compelling. Taxes Fwiw, my argument is that compared to Visa or Mastercard, you weren't going to find a company that has anywhere near the valuation. You're still well under 1% of either of them, and pointing to a company that's been around just under a decade. I'm not saying they aren't big, just that the risk to Visa and Mastercard is very high and it would be idiotic to risk all that just to accept payments for weed.
        paulddraper 3y ago
        Sure, not many companies compare to Visa/Mastercard valuation. Kinda meaningless comparison. E.g. the largest tomato producer in the U.S. is Lipman and they have ~$350 million [1] revenue, with probably a 1x multiple. [1] https://www.zoominfo.com/c/lipman-family-farms/346563103 https://www.zoominfo.com/c/lipman-family-farms/346563103
  - zamadatix 3y ago
    Businesses were based off of it when it was completely illegal at all levels too, they just couldn't be as public about it. These businesses are still limited quite heavily by the lack of federal legalization, and in more ways than just payment processing.
godelski 3y ago
> especially if like you alluded to, weighting by voter participation. I don't think this is nearly as bad as everyone internalizes. Voting by age (with weed positions at the side by full/med only/illegal) is - 51% for 18-24 (72/20/7 age 18-29) - 63% for 25-44 (62/26/10 age 30-49) - 71% for 45-64 (54/34/11 age 50-64) - 76% for 65-74 (53/34/10) - 72% for 75+ (30/51/16) There is a correlation, but literally only one group has a <50%, and it is still 81% for medical. There's still a HUGE disalignment no mater what age demographic we're discussing. It's not old people, it is old people who are in politics. Edit: forgot to cite the census other numbers are from the same pew above https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-pre...
- callalex 3y ago
  You provided a lot of very precise numbers that you pulled from some source you researched, but you didn’t share that source with us so your numbers are useless.
  - godelski 3y ago
    I apologize. I fixed it. The demographics were from the census and the weed numbers were from the previous pew article
- brnaftr361 3y ago
  I think it's also a pretty big thing to unwind, right? Do they keep all the people who are in the system because of something related to weed in, or do you let them go? Do they assume culpability for fines, imprisonment, damages, defamation... I'd say it seems to be in the best interest of the ruling class to orchestrate a slow deflation. States legalize it against the will of the federal government, this gets people out of the system for related charges. After some critical mass they homologate it with alcohol/tobacco and there's no catastrophic secondary motion. In the linked maps, many of the areas with the highest drug use, which I assume predicts potsmoking rates, also so happen to be the ones which have elected to legalize in some capacity. Whether that stands up to statistical tests of significance is another matter... Anyways, these policies were put into action by the federal government, repealing them may appear to be an admission of fault - and fault that appearing increasingly to have retarded important research on a number of candidates for a variety of therapies while also crushing countless thousands of lives for behaviors that are, I (and I think many others) would argue, fundamental to humans. It's interesting to look at some maps: US Population Map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_by_U.S._state.svg#/media/File:Population_by_U.S._state.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_by_U.S._s... Map of Cannabis Status: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg#/media/File:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_state_cann... Maps of Drug Statistics: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2018/03/pspp_more_imprisonment_does_not_reduce_state_drug_problems_fig2.png https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2018/03...
colatkinson 3y ago
The issue isn't the states though, it's the fact that it's still scheduled (and thus completely illegal) at the federal level. So those states that have legalized it are in a bit of a gray area: the past few presidents have basically said they won't enforce anything, but that's not exactly the most stable legal foundation on which to build. Especially if you're, say, a multi-billion dollar payment processor. If the popular consensus is that this is something that should be left up to the states, then federal legislation to that effect should be passed. The status quo is clearly farcical. That said, my state has technically issued licenses for exactly two (2) dispensaries, and yet there's one on every corner. All of which accept card. So I have my doubts as to whether this is anything other than CYA by Mastercard.
- water554 3y ago
  Federal legislation doesn't need to be passed to restore states rights, it merely has to be wiped from the books.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    They do that by passing more legislation that deletes the previous one.

zamadatix 3y ago

As the article and above comment allude, the states do not currently have enough authority for legalization at the state level to be meaningful in many contexts. Until the federal level restrictions are removed it doesn't matter if 100% of states legalize it for recreational use, many of the problems still exist.

paulddraper 3y ago
Meaningful enough that whole businesses have been based on it. The trouble with payment processing isn't equivalent to legality. See adult entertainment.
- godelski 3y ago
  > Meaningful enough that whole businesses have been based on it. What's the highest valuation of any of those companies? Now what percentage of MasterCard's current 380 billion market cap or Visa's 485 billion market cap is that? There's other factors with porn at play that have been discussed. But yeah, I don't think a multi-hundred billion dollar company is going to risk having all its assets seized for engaging in activities that are considered illegal by the federal government. Small companies can take this risk. These aren't the same.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    > What's the highest valuation of any of those companies? Green Thumb Industries. [1] Current market cap $1.6 billion. [2] Look, you're right: the federal prohibition definitely has consequences. But also, there are 8 and 9-figure companies operating in this space. [1] https://www.gtigrows.com/ https://www.gtigrows.com/ [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTBIF https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GTBIF
    - godelski 3y ago
      Honestly that figure makes the argument of legalization more compelling. Taxes Fwiw, my argument is that compared to Visa or Mastercard, you weren't going to find a company that has anywhere near the valuation. You're still well under 1% of either of them, and pointing to a company that's been around just under a decade. I'm not saying they aren't big, just that the risk to Visa and Mastercard is very high and it would be idiotic to risk all that just to accept payments for weed.
      - paulddraper 3y ago
        Sure, not many companies compare to Visa/Mastercard valuation. Kinda meaningless comparison. E.g. the largest tomato producer in the U.S. is Lipman and they have ~$350 million [1] revenue, with probably a 1x multiple. [1] https://www.zoominfo.com/c/lipman-family-farms/346563103 https://www.zoominfo.com/c/lipman-family-farms/346563103
- zamadatix 3y ago
  Businesses were based off of it when it was completely illegal at all levels too, they just couldn't be as public about it. These businesses are still limited quite heavily by the lack of federal legalization, and in more ways than just payment processing.

godelski 3y ago

> especially if like you alluded to, weighting by voter participation. I don't think this is nearly as bad as everyone internalizes. Voting by age (with weed positions at the side by full/med only/illegal) is - 51% for 18-24 (72/20/7 age 18-29) - 63% for 25-44 (62/26/10 age 30-49) - 71% for 45-64 (54/34/11 age 50-64) - 76% for 65-74 (53/34/10) - 72% for 75+ (30/51/16) There is a correlation, but literally only one group has a <50%, and it is still 81% for medical. There's still a HUGE disalignment no mater what age demographic we're discussing. It's not old people, it is old people who are in politics. Edit: forgot to cite the census other numbers are from the same pew above https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-pre...

callalex 3y ago
You provided a lot of very precise numbers that you pulled from some source you researched, but you didn’t share that source with us so your numbers are useless.
- godelski 3y ago
  I apologize. I fixed it. The demographics were from the census and the weed numbers were from the previous pew article
brnaftr361 3y ago
I think it's also a pretty big thing to unwind, right? Do they keep all the people who are in the system because of something related to weed in, or do you let them go? Do they assume culpability for fines, imprisonment, damages, defamation... I'd say it seems to be in the best interest of the ruling class to orchestrate a slow deflation. States legalize it against the will of the federal government, this gets people out of the system for related charges. After some critical mass they homologate it with alcohol/tobacco and there's no catastrophic secondary motion. In the linked maps, many of the areas with the highest drug use, which I assume predicts potsmoking rates, also so happen to be the ones which have elected to legalize in some capacity. Whether that stands up to statistical tests of significance is another matter... Anyways, these policies were put into action by the federal government, repealing them may appear to be an admission of fault - and fault that appearing increasingly to have retarded important research on a number of candidates for a variety of therapies while also crushing countless thousands of lives for behaviors that are, I (and I think many others) would argue, fundamental to humans. It's interesting to look at some maps: US Population Map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_by_U.S._state.svg#/media/File:Population_by_U.S._state.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_by_U.S._s... Map of Cannabis Status: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg#/media/File:Map_of_US_state_cannabis_laws.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_US_state_cann... Maps of Drug Statistics: https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2018/03/pspp_more_imprisonment_does_not_reduce_state_drug_problems_fig2.png https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/post-launch-images/2018/03...

colatkinson 3y ago

The issue isn't the states though, it's the fact that it's still scheduled (and thus completely illegal) at the federal level. So those states that have legalized it are in a bit of a gray area: the past few presidents have basically said they won't enforce anything, but that's not exactly the most stable legal foundation on which to build. Especially if you're, say, a multi-billion dollar payment processor. If the popular consensus is that this is something that should be left up to the states, then federal legislation to that effect should be passed. The status quo is clearly farcical. That said, my state has technically issued licenses for exactly two (2) dispensaries, and yet there's one on every corner. All of which accept card. So I have my doubts as to whether this is anything other than CYA by Mastercard.

water554 3y ago
Federal legislation doesn't need to be passed to restore states rights, it merely has to be wiped from the books.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  They do that by passing more legislation that deletes the previous one.