Hacker News Reader

Comment by aaronbrethorst | Hacker News Reader

The one pot shop located in a residential neighborhood in Seattle is, apparently, doing about $14,000 of business per day: http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2014/10/central-seattles-o...

So, there's definitely demand. I don't buy pot, and only very rarely smoke, but if I did, I'd definitely buy from a licensed shop despite the price increase. Guarantees about quality, funneling tax revenue back to the state, and ensuring that I'm not funding narcoterrorism would totally be worth it to me: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2...

View on HN

If you smoked weed, you probably wouldn't. If you did before, you would be so used to the black market, you'd stick with it, because. Weed is already expensive, so you are in luck if you could afford the shop prices on a regular basis, which we are talking about at 14k/day. Also, the negative side-effects are ignorance, for lack of a better word, so your reasons likely wouldn't even come up. For (most of) the occasional toker, it's just as much about convenience, while the moral high ground stance is just a pretense, as is much of the stoner's cultural background.

Enough people have already demonstrated willingness to pay the higher price that I'm not sure I believe your argument. And at any rate, legalization is likely to grow the population of smokers, and that growth will likely be among those most interested in legal acquisition. In WA, prices will come down as supply increases, so it's not a static environment anyway.

That really needs to be qualified.

If a person smokes very regularly, yes. Your argument has merit, particularly among people with modest to low financial means.

However, people with average and above financial means, who also really are recreational users are likely to buy. (weekend, social, specific event users) They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.

>They know doing so contributes to the acceptance and normalization of the activity, and that's worth a lot to everyone involved, save the black market dealers.

That's the hypocracy. It's not their behaviour that leads to acceptance, it's the state deciding what's acceptable or not . That is to incure tax and decrease spending, for all I care, and maybe a twisted social experiment of sorts, but not in first line for the well being of the people. Supporting that with the rhetorical finger pointing at The Terrorist is so utterly hypocritical, I'm at loss of words. Surely, the argument is not immoral, but it's completely missing the point. Us against The Terrorist is too simple a frame of mind, it's agrevating, but not to a calmed down stoner of course.

And "the State" decides based on people wanting the activity normalized just as it does economic reasons.

Those "calmed down" stoners may well be politically active. In the past, they were. The classic stereotype paints the stoner as living on the couch, munching, doing nothing.

Lots of those out there for sure. However, there are a lot of people who use lightly, or for creative reasons. Those people tend to be politically active. They also generally abhor bull shit.

Right now, I'm not sure our system can operate without some degree of hypocrisy. But, it is the system we have. There isn't going to be another one, so we've got to work with and sometimes hack the one we've got. Maybe it can be made better.

I'm not a stoner. I've smoked pot once this year. In January. The state has accepted the de facto status quo and made it the de jure status quo by way of a popular vote (which won with an 11.4% margin). People are going to smoke pot, or they're not. The legalization of marijuana is unlikely to meaningfully change users' and potential users' relationship to it.

Also, the story I linked to previously was a finalist for a Pulitzer prize. I think that qualifies as being slightly more substantiated than "rhetorical finger pointing".

Finally, I'm disappointed that you felt compelled to resort to an ad hominem attack to try to make your point.

It's not ad hominem, it's hyperbolic and a reference to the synergy of Distraction and FUD. Of course, legalization makes a difference. Dozens of people will think Weed is not a drug anymore, just like alcohol and tobacco are often not taken serious.

Meanwhile, you use an argument of authority. Keep your disappointment. I could point to a couple sources about the Terrorist strawman, but I'm sure you know the context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com