Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2121970/Washington-voters-approved-legalized-marijuana

by llambda • 14 years ago

404 126 14 years ago

mynorthwest.com

blackhole• 14 years ago

Provided we also legalize same-sex marriage, this voting cycle will make me proud to be a Washington native.

askimto• 14 years ago

Y'all also fell for another initiative from Tim Eyman.

irollboozers• 14 years ago

This was the only vote that didn't go my way, unfortunately.

aaronbrethorst• 14 years ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted. We always fall for Eyman initiatives, sadly. Eyman, for those who aren't from here, is the guy who keeps getting initiatives on the ballot that make our government as ineffective as California's.

genwin• 14 years ago

Why is a roadblock to higher taxes bad? As long as the current tax % is sufficient, I don't see why that % shouldn't be sustained indefinitely.

haberman• 14 years ago

I could not agree more!

EricDeb• 14 years ago

Yessir. Very proud to be from Olympia, WA at this moment

marssaxman• 14 years ago

Yep. Feeling really good about this election.

sharkweek• 14 years ago

Proud Seattleite here too -- both gay marriage and marijuana legalization; steps in the right direction in my opinion. Will be interesting to see how much authority the Feds take on 502 (marijuana). I know the WA state lawyers have been buffing up for a big Supreme Court fight; fascinating case incoming.

shrikant• 14 years ago

...and done. Referendum Measure No. 74 has passed! http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Measures-All.html

ozten• 14 years ago

Easy tiger... I'm excited to pass r-74, but only 51% of the votes are in. We might not know until Friday.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/washington

beatgammit• 14 years ago

Meh, not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision, but I do appreciate that this decision is being made at the state level instead of the national level. I too am proud to be a Washington native in this election, but mostly because of the public charter school system.

Being a fiscal conservative, the national election, however, did not go as I had hoped. Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wake up to.

illuminate8• 14 years ago

"not too happy about the same-sex marriage decision ... Being a fiscal conservative"

Not to argue with your beliefs, but why call yourself a "fiscal conservative" if you're also a social conservative?

Generally people make the distinction only in the case that they do not apply religious mores to politics.

ryanmolden• 14 years ago

>Seeing stocks drop like that was not the best news to wake up to

This has always confused me. Are you day trading or holding positions where short term moves massively impact you? Or do you believe the entire market will actually explode? As someone with investments I honestly pay little attention to short term moves as I am investing on far longer time horizons. Or maybe I am just missing how the market going up or down after random event X impacts my life in any meaningful way or portends really anything. I do see how both sides like to claim the market is validating whatever they are currently trying to "sell", I think these people massively over-simplify "the market" and its moves, for obvious reasons.

hayksaakian• 14 years ago

We also got another district this cycle. Hurrah. Northwest peoples!

Metrop0218• 14 years ago

Moving up next year, makes me happy to see.

ComputerGuru2• 14 years ago

I'm not someone who would take advantage of the legalization of marijuana, but I am in favor of legalization because I don't think it's the government's job to tell you what you can or can't do. If drinking is legal, smoking weed should be too.

I understand the concept behind a tax on marijuana, but I don't understand a 25% tax on every stage of the process... If you're saying that it's legal to use marijuana responsibly and you're limiting how much you can buy, I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that.

Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? Are we selling out purely for the economic benefits? Or is neutral and the government are running what boils down to a protection racket?

koudelka• 14 years ago

How do you feel about legalization of other substances?

TruthElixirX2• 14 years ago

Has banning people from shooting meth into the webbing of their fingers stopped them?

No. It has only made things worse.

100% legalization for all substances.

sliverstorm3• 14 years ago

Let's see how MJ goes, and then we'll talk. You've been given an inch; don't immediately lunge for a mile.

dreamdu5t2• 14 years ago

The government is a protection racket. Laws against weed violate the sovereignty of hte individual. It's absurd that the primary argument is tax revenue. Really shows how whacked politics and American's conception of government is.

drivebyacct24• 14 years ago

I'm interested to know why you're being downvoted.

sethrin5• 14 years ago

What is "individual sovereignty"?

Rights are granted not by God, not by some internal edict. They come from the society you inhabit.

The world of sovereign individuals is wonderful in objectivist fantasies. In reality, it results in anarchy, for a brief moment before one strongman clubs another over the head, and two other people decide to team up against their neighbors.

Even casting aside the concept of civilization as we know it, you cannot reproduce in a vacuum, nor live in one. You are beholden to others for your existence, and you repay this debt by helping to ensure the continuation of the species. A morality that prizes collective rights over the rights of the individual is fundamental to our biology. Sovereignty, therefore is not a function of individuals.

Lest I be decried as an opposite but equal ideologue, I do see a necessary role for the individualists. The forces of society and government are powerful, and must be resisted: what is bad for one individual is just as likely to be bad for the whole of society. Neither side should ever presume an absolute right: in this battle there is no victory.

You also err in your definition of government. You were nearly correct: government is a natural monopoly on the use of force. The 'competitive market' for government is commonly called warfare. Government is a necessary evil as long as men are capable of violence.

Kadin• 14 years ago

> Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it?

"The government", no; but many voters, yes. There are a lot of people who don't use cannabis and don't have any interest in whether or not it's legal, but are swayed by the potential tax revenues.

It was the bargain necessary to get the votes to pass it. Perhaps in the future the tax rate will be stepped down if it's really felt to be excessive or if there's widespread avoidance, or at least the double-taxation aspect will be eliminated, but it might just stay: depending on what the price of cannabis turns out to be in the marketplace, the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places.

ComputerGuru2• 14 years ago

the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places.

I'm sure the government will want their cut soon enough, then it'll be 25% state tax + whatever the federal government decides to charge. As it is, no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner. It'll be in the supreme court very soon, I'll bet.

Firehed2• 14 years ago

If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers.

But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and one step back is still directionally correct.

WalterBright2• 14 years ago

If the taxes are too high, the black market and its associated crime returns. This happened with high cigarette taxes a few years back, and the taxes were stepped back down.

Tuna-Fish2• 14 years ago

> I don't see the point of a whole 25% tax on top of that.

I would like to point out that a 25% tax on legally produced marijuana is very low. A 500% tax would still be low. Considering the amounts consumed, growing marijuana is really easy and cheap. Without the legislation against it, when grown in volume by professionals it should have a cost per kg nearing that of hydroponic cabbage, or some 1000 times less than it's present street price.

Jabbles• 14 years ago

A quick internet search suggests the price for "high quality" marijuana is roughly $250 per ounce in California.

That's $9000/kg. For comparison the price of Gold appears to be roughly $55000/kg.

If you're right about it being as easy to grow as cabbage, then I think it could be taxed quite a lot...

smsm428• 14 years ago

That doesn't mean the tax is low. Cabbage is grown like cabbage, and it doesn't have 25% tax on it.

And what is 500% tax? You pay 4x your revenue for the right to grow marijuana? It's not a tax then, it's prohibitive fine.

bitwize• 14 years ago

growing marijuana is really easy and cheap.

Well, they call it "weed" for a reason. :)

nedwin• 14 years ago

In Australia as of 2007 only 25% of the cost of a packet of cigarettes goes to the manufacturer, 13% goes to the retailer and the rest goes to state and federal taxes.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-...

Since then a further 25% tax has been put into place, increasing the price of tobacco to around $20 per packet.

netcan• 14 years ago

It's part of making an overwhelming argument, overcoming as many objections as possible. Common component of rhetorical arguments, especially by economically minded people.

For example, fre market economists are usually pro economic immigration: Let resources (labour) go to their highest value use. If a graphic designer can make more in an Oslo design office than they can in Bucharest, there is a potential economic surplus. Opponents might make some objections: there will be increased unemployment among local graphic designers, the immigrants will mean increased costs in local services.

The economist-proponent looks at the surplus. Going from a €7k salary to €50k. Adjusted for costs, he calculates a €25k surplus. All the opponents objections can be overcome with €5k at most: new job training centres, schools and hospitals. He throws in another €5k to make the argument stick. He can have his immigration and unemployment will go down, hospitals & schools will be better funded, design firms will have better/cheaper designers and the immigrant will have a better income - even after they charge him €10k a year.

Makes sense on paper. It's a good way of simplifying an argument by creating an on paper ceteris parabus. When it actually makes it into policy ir law, it can be arbitrary and unfair at the best of time (eg immigrants pay higher taxes). It's also a potential faucet for funding that the hungry will flock to.

The weed smoker has a lot to gain. Lower prices. Better quality. Reduced stigma. Easier access. Not getting put locked a cage. Well worth the $500 per year.

Symmetry3• 14 years ago

Good post. The economic term for these sort of arguments is Pareto Efficiency [1]. I think there's a lot to be said for the idea that you ought to make all the changes that make literally everyone better off before worrying about changes that make some people better off and some people less so.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

flyinRyan3• 14 years ago

Maybe the politicians have set it up to fail so they can come back and claim legalization doesn't work? If you raise the taxes high enough, you'll keep the black market alive because the price difference offsets the danger for a large enough customer base. Black market cigarettes are a "thing" in Europe, for example.

nyargh• 14 years ago

Some historical context may be helpful here: For a very long time Washington state had a highly regulated, tiered program for selling liquor. Very recently, this was privatized. The marijuana legislation that passed, I-502, very closely apes this structure - which kept financial interest in the production, distribution and retail of liquor separate - hence the separate taxation at each "tier".

The explanation here could best be summed up as "the devil you know".

Further, as with liquor, this decriminalizes personal possession without requiring tax stamps. This tax structure is in place to regulate and generate revenue from the production, distribution an retail of marijuana - not necessarily the consumption.

isleyaardvark• 14 years ago

This article puts the increase in liquor costs at 10-30% due to fees. 25% is not terribly far from that, and if you've accepted sin taxes there's no reason marijuana should be exempt. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/04/washington-state-li...)

bradmcnally• 14 years ago

Washington State has a very high tax on liquor as well.

smsm428• 14 years ago

Government doesn't need to be bribed, voters do. It is pretty much "if you potheads want us to not put you to jail, there should be something in it for us too". Ideally, people should not be paying bribes to be able to do something that harms nobody and is their own private business. However, in the messed up world of American politics, it is what it takes - nobody cares about your freedom, but if you sweeten the deal with some tax dollars, it may be worth considering.

Government is running protection rackets in many areas, but in this particular one it is the voters who take the decision. I never heard an argument about legalize which based on freedom and lack of harm and medicinal uses, etc. alone and was successful. Add tax income to that, and your poll numbers are much better.

r00fus• 14 years ago

So you're saying there will be no costs in enforcing safe usage of pot? What are the societal costs of (to use alcohol analogy) driving while stoned? What about rehab?

The public, through the government, effectively pays for this, and taxing the activity can alleviate or mitigate those costs.

adamnemecek• 14 years ago

I just moved here but this seems like a big deal too http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Initiative-Measure-No-124...

jayfuerstenberg• 14 years ago

Congratulations Washington! Today is a day of forward thinking across the United States.

Also, Colorado voted to legalize Marijuana as well.

veidr• 14 years ago

Ah, the smell of progress...

numbsafari• 14 years ago

This'll take a lot of pressure off of people in Redmond...

alpb• 14 years ago

So when are we starting this?...

timfrietas• 14 years ago

How so? You can still fail a drug test for weed, same as you can for alcohol, and employers like MS can still fire you.

curiousDog• 14 years ago

MS doesn't do drug tests. Atleast I don't remember taking one when I was there.

illuminate8• 14 years ago

Tech companies in the PNW do not drug test, generally.

Tiktaalik• 14 years ago

It'll be interesting to see what, if any, effect this has north of the border in British Columbia. Marijuana decriminalization and legalization has often been discussed in Canada, but one of the main arguments against a change in the law is that the United States would not approve. Seems like that may be changing.

MartinCron2• 14 years ago

That, and Vanouver BC didn't want to be a destination for drug tourism. Vancouver, WA will now have that honor.

rdl• 14 years ago

Felons can't go into Canada (and, there's customs search too), so BC as drug tourist/reup spot doesn't make as much sense as Vancouver WA drug tourist/reup spot.

(although I can't imagine anyone buying retail ounces and then selling them, legal supply chains tend to cover up illicit ones running in parallel, or allow diversion, so I could see the underground taking advantage of this.)

flyinRyan3• 14 years ago

>but one of the main arguments against a change in the law is that the United States would not approve.

How embarrassing for your country. The US doesn't approve of prostitution either, though?

jlgreco• 14 years ago

To my knowledge there is no equivalent of the Controlled Substances Act. Prostitution laws are all state laws.

colmvp• 14 years ago

California... shake my head

davidw• 14 years ago

It'd be nice if we could leave politics to other sites, please. Pretty please? There are a zillion sub-reddits where you can discuss this stuff as much as you want, but just one Hacker News, which does not need to go political.

(I'm pretty happy with the results too, but that's neither here nor there)

exolxe• 14 years ago

It's interesting to consider how much of the legislative and voting process actually impacts the act.

A lot of voters probably view marijuana as positive/neutral, though how many were actually swayed by the 25% tax?

In the end there's a larger systemic problem, where you compromise and are either hurting consumers of a neutral/positive product or benefiting as a governmental system by feeding off of a negative product. Either way, regardless of your views it's a forward step for society, though with somewhat perverse implications.

Washington voters approve legalized marijuana

Related Stories