Facebook Billionaire Gives Money To Legalize Marijuana 527
Aldenissin writes "Dustin Moskovitz confirmed that he has recently given (an additional) $50,000 in support of Proposition 19, which is seeking to legalize marijuana in California this November. He had previously donated $20,000 to supporters of the act, which would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate or transport cannabis for personal use and would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of the substance. Asked for a comment as to why he's backing the legalization of marijuana, Moskovitz just sent this statement: 'More than any other initiative out there, Prop 19 will stabilize our national security and bolster our state economy. It will alleviate unnecessary overcrowding of non-violent offenders in our state jails, which in turn will help California residents.' An irony here is that about a month ago, Facebook refused to take FireDogLake's 'Just Say Now' pro-cannabis law reform ads."
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm just guessing, but this may refer to Mexico border security. The drug trade's pretty violent right now, and the theory is that legalizing marijuana will undercut the cartels, forcing them to calm down and act like legitimate businesspeople instead of terrorists.
I have my doubts about this theory (it's not like the 21st Amendment magically got rid of organized crime in the U.S.), but it's not WTF-worthy.
Re:At first I wondered... (Score:5, Interesting)
Prohibition made the Mob massive amounts of money.
It also taught total disrespect for the law because the Volstead Act was unworthy of a free people. The laws against and campaign against marijuana are similarly the product of Puritanical nonsense and worthy of even more contempt since cannabis is vastly less socially toxic than alcohol.
(Booze-related domestic violence is common, while weed-related violence is quite rare even with tens of millions of smokers in the US alone.)
Re:This is good (Score:3, Interesting)
Prop. 19 creates a new protected class of worker (Article 5, 11304(c)). It explicitly forbids discrimination on the basis of marijuana use unless the employer can prove that the usage affects job performance. This is a very high standard of proof, and more than we currently require for alcohol and tobacco.
This blatant overreach is why I voted against Prop. 19, even though I support marijuana legalization in general. Existing anti-discrimination laws are already very strong, and adequate to cover cases of genuine disability. legalization should do just that: make marijuana legal. There is no need for side effects such as creating new protected classes of workers.
Re:Where are the big Ag companies in all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize you are trying to somehow demonize pot further by tying it to those companies but seriously, who cares? Under the bill as it stands you'll still be able to grow your own if you want.
BTW, I dare you to thoroughly check out the mutual funds in your retirement investments. I'm betting you already support those two "evil" companies & don't even realize it.
So not that acquainted with the street then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a hint: Weed is way easier for kids to buy than alcohol. Alcohol is only sold in stores and restaurants. The bootleggers have basically vanished. Even with the taxes, you just can't compete with Safeway. Well, turns out the stores aren't willing to sell to kids. They get plenty of sales legally to adults and do not at all need the heat they get from underage sales. So they check ID. Makes it hard for a kid to get it, without an adult accomplice.
Pot though? Drug dealers don't check ID. They sell to anyone who's got the cash. They are already breaking the law, they don't give a shit if it is your kid. What's more, they'll even market to kids. They need to try and find every customer they can, since they have to keep things underground. Means they'll target anyone who looks likely.
You legalize pot, kids will have a much harder time getting their hands on it. Won't be impossible, of course, they can get an adult to buy it for them as they do with alcohol. However it'll be harder than it is now.
Oh and PS: "Think of the children," arguments are bullshit. It is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than use logic.
Re:Marijuana/cannabis (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, which makes the UK Home Office's initial statement [wordpress.com] that...
"Drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis are extremely harmful and can cause misery to communities across the country."
... in response to yet another scientist proposing cannabis legalization seem all the more pitifully ignorant. (they later took cannabis out of that grouping, but it goes to show how naturally their brains group all 'drugs' together as 'harmful'.) We can only hope that California's legalizing cannabis acts as a catalyst for other enlightened countries around the world to do the same.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Key word, of course, is "act". If it becomes bad for business to act like terrorists, they likely will cease doing so, even if they're the same sociopathic thugs they've always been. They're not ideologically or religiously motivated, after all; they're just in it for money.
We had drugs just about ready and waiting for organized crime to move into. Get rid of drug laws (by which I mean legalizing use and sale for all the major categories of recreational drugs, including opiates, cocaine, and amphetamines, and keeping any taxes on same reasonable) and you'll push organized crime back to their roots as protection rackets and smugglers. Which won't eliminate them but should reduce their reach.
Re:Mixed messages (Score:4, Interesting)
realizing that one of the smartest and most productive people I knew was a recreational pot smoker certainly changed my viewpoint on the drug.
I have several similar stories: productive people casually smoking pot for recreational purposes and still being responsible people. I've got a few very dissimilar stories as well and it wasn't very pretty to see. I've seen a guy lose himself in drug use looking for the next high, waking up at 8 in the morning and lighting up a joint, and over the years working himself up to various other drugs that are not as harmless. A guy I used to work with lit up on the way to work every single day, so he wasn't a very dependable person. He would atypically also get fits of rage whenever he didn't get what he wanted. I think the coworker I mention here had some psychological problems, perhaps amplified by the drug use, perhaps not... I'm not an expert on the subject.
I don't buy that whole "gateway drug" thing. I know too many people who've smoked pot and never once tried something else. Like most things, I think it depends on the user on how they use the drug and how well balanced they are. From what I have observed alcohol has more devastating effects on people than pot, but that argument seems to open up a can of worms best left closed.
I live in a country next to The Netherlands and the "drug problem" has evolved to the point where the effects of usage are no longer the main problem, but the fact that foreigners are buying drugs and causing the locals grief with all the traffic has become the main issue on the agenda. This has led to various public figures from both governments clashing, and if I'm not mistaken there's a strong push in the Netherlands for a system where you have to prove your identity when purchasing pot. I would argue that if this is the most worrisome issue with people using pot the whole thing has pretty much become a farce, but leave it to politicians to make matters more complicated than they need be.
And to conclude, something mildly entertaining: the effect of drugs on spiders [youtube.com].
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:4, Interesting)
We need smarter, more dedicated voters and objectively assembled, well reported journalism.
And since that's not going to happen no matter how much money you invest in that goal, what would you like to do instead?
(Seriously, unless you're prepared to suspend freedom of religion in this country, sufficiently smart voters won't happen even if you invest 100% of our state and federal dollars in education).
Re:Mixed messages (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not have any correlation to being smarter. But it has a huge correlation to being more creative.
Creative? No, I don't think so. Random is the word you're looking for. I don't use mind-altering substances but I have observed several people close to me do so. What you're calling creative - which is a popular and historically common - really isn't. Recreational drugs and alcohol serve to suppress coherent cognitive awareness. Users have diminished reasoning skills and what's left is random, less-coherent thought patterns.
For every "brilliant" writing/painting/work-of-art that supposedly couldn't have happened without some drug, there's a bunch of pointless crap produced by a stoner. Douglas Adams slaved ever every word in the Hitchhiker's Guide series. He didn't get wasted. Coherent people can produce brilliantly creative works. Incoherent people sometimes do. Hence random.
That all being said, do what you will. I don't care if someone elects to get out of their mind. Not my business. But the idea that drugs lead to on-average "better" creativity is false.
Re:This is good (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be clear to other readers that this doesn't mean what you claim it does.
Regardless of what you or I say, I think other readers and (more importantly) other voters will be smart enough to see the truth.
The text says clearly and specifically that only "consumption that actually impairs job performance" may be addressed. This is not my interpretation. This is not something I made up. This is an actual quote.
The text clearly and specifically forbids discrimination. It clearly and specifically uses the word "discriminated". If this does not constitute creation of a protected class under anti-discrimination statutes, then I don't know what does.
Under existing law, it is legal for me to fire or refuse to hire smokers [latimes.com] based solely on the fact that they smoke. I do not need to defend my decision on the basis of job performance. Hell, I can even legally fire someone based solely on the fact that their spouse smokes. Even you, despite all our disagreements, seem to agree that Prop. 19 bans this practice with respect to marijuana use. I see no reason why Prop. 19 needs to address this issue. Legalization of tobacco or alcohol is not tied to anti-discrimination laws in any way. Why does there need to be a link for marijuana?
Re:It also weakens the overall message (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, tobacco is far more dangerous than heroin would be if it were legal. Before prohibition, addiction to heroin wasn't much more than a nuisance, while tobacco was merrily killing people just like it does today. The big dangers of heroin are all caused by prohibition - unreliable dosages causing accidental overdoses, insane black-market prices causing crime and needle-use (so as to get the desired effect with as small an amount as possible), and cutting with toxic substances doing all sorts of things. The worst side-effect of addiction, if it were accepted the way the drugs everyone uses are accepted, would be constipation.
Crystal meth is the only significant drug which clearly beats alcohol and tobacco for dangers inherent to the drug itself, rather than the dangers you'll incur due to the bigots who'll hate and fear you for making choices which aren't sufficiently normal.
Re:This is good (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Marijuana/cannabis (Score:3, Interesting)
We KNOW why this doesn't work (Score:3, Interesting)
People are uninformed about issues and candidates, because that is the smart thing to do. The fundamental problem is that the cost in time and effort of me learning is spent by me, while the benefit is shared equally be the whole electorate. So with a million voters I only get one millionth of the benefit of my labor. Few people want to work hard under those conditions.
This is a well researched phenomenon known as "Rational ignorance". Google it to learn more.
Like any vision dependent on a fundamental change in human nature, your system empirically does not, and can not work. What we need is a system where people can affect their own lives. In those areas people are usually quite well informed and make as good decisions as they're capable of.
Re:So *that* is how it works... (Score:3, Interesting)
Especially when groups like "60plus" do not reveal where the estimated 5 billion dollars in funding came from.
They are running tons of ads this year. For all we know, they are being funded by the iraqi's.