Hacker News Reader

I think the real issue here is the idea that we need to check each and every one of these boxes before pot is legal. We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous.

> So if something comes round that's basically pot, but also sometimes causes instant death in people who take it, we should allow its sellers to operate under our marijuana legislation? And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation?

e-cigs, vaping, etc. The same thing comes up with cigarette-derivatives, yet we don't ban cigarettes (and throw all cigarette users in jail) until there are laws in place covering all contingencies.

> We didn't make sure to check each and every box, and think up contingencies for each and every situation that could ever happen before we allowed alcohol and cigarettes to be sold to the general populous [sic].

Heck, we didn't originally allow alcohol and cigarettes to be sold: they just were. In the state of nature, any free man is free to sell whatever he wants to any other free man. Is that really such a bad situation? Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing?

> Why do people expend so much effort in regulating and outlawing?

Well, snake oil salesmen for one.

> > (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done.

> Well, we have them around alcohol - and around tons of other things - mostly so people can't do things like advertise cigarettes on kids' shows, etc.

Surely it's parents' responsibility what their children watch? Some parents don't want their children to see pink-princess adverts; should those be banned too?

> Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology?

Both should be, yes.

> Customers' private data?

That's a matter for private contracts.

> There's not 'already a system in place' - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one.

That's the beauty of the jury system: 'ladies and gentlemen of approximately the same social class and status of the defendant, these witnesses state that he was intoxicated, for these reasons and with this evidence. How decide you?'

> And how do you even know if it's 'pot enough' to qualify for marijuana legislation?

Why do you need legislation? The default state of things is for them to be legal: there's no law allowing my colleagues to bring food into the office to celebrate Christmas; there's no law allowing my to purchase trousers; there's no law in place permitting you to drink water; why should marijuana, heroin or hand grenades be any different? Just let it go!

> This ignores the fact that other seeds took shitloads of work to legislate.

And yet somehow life before the Canadian seed regulations still went on. Maybe they improve things (maybe). But maybe it's just busywork for politicians which enables busywork and patronage for civil servants and regulatory capture by industry.

And maybe it is just busywork (maybe). But it's busywork that, for whatever reason, we will have to do in order to legalize marijuana.

> There's a lot of logistics involved in releasing at least six thousand prisoners [1] at once.

So stagger the releases by compressing their remaining sentence from n years into n weeks, truncating at a sensible maximum. And in the meantime unlock their jail cells, permit food delivery, and let them chill.