Gyroscopic Investing

Wow.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... ation.html

Wow is right, didn't see that coming. Better late than never.

I am in almost complete agreement with the New York Times editorial. And now after typing that sentence, I need to take an aspirin and go lie down for a little while.

Desert wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: I am in almost complete agreement with the New York Times editorial. And now after typing that sentence, I need to take an aspirin and go lie down for a little while.

It's a slippery slope.  Next thing you know, you'll be a godless communist.

Or the Times will become the New York branch office for Reason Magazine. 

I am more libertarian than not on things like this (live and let live), but in all seriousness, why is marijuana OK and not cocaine, heroine etc etc.

"You can't legislate morality."  Should big bro make MJ available with all the "free" condoms?  Surely everyone has a "right" to get high?

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: "You can't legislate morality."  Should big bro make MJ available with all the "free" condoms?  Surely everyone has a "right" to get high?

... Mountaineer

I do generally agree with the statement in quotes.  I think the morality starts with the individual, not necessarily the law. 

I do like the idea of providing free Mary Jane to the poor.  When Obama comes over for dinner tomorrow, I'll suggest that to him.  I'm thinking of perhaps an "Obama care package," that would include a cell phone, some Mary Jane, and a box of condoms.  And perhaps a Koran. 

+ 

... Mountaineer

Pot Seen as Reason for Rise in Denver Homeless
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/pot- ... s-24727436

Officials at some Denver homeless shelters say the legalization of marijuana has contributed to an increase in the number of younger people living on the city's streets.

One organization dealing with the increase is Urban Peak, which provides food, shelter and other services to homeless people aged 15 to 24 in Denver and Colorado Springs.

"Of the new kids we're seeing, the majority are saying they're here because of the weed," deputy director Kendall Rames told The Denver Post ( http://dpo.st/1l1vQER ). "They're traveling through. It is very unfortunate."

The Salvation Army's single men's shelter in Denver has been serving more homeless this summer, and officials have noted an increase in the number of 18- to 25-year-olds there.

The shelter housed an average of 225 each night last summer, but this summer it's averaging 300 people per night. No breakdown was available by age, but an informal survey found that about a quarter of the increase was related to marijuana, including people who moved hoping to find work in the marijuana industry, said Murray Flagg, divisional social services secretary for the Salvation Army's Intermountain Division.

Some of the homeless have felony backgrounds that prevent them from working in pot shops and grow houses, which are regulated by the state, Flagg said. He also thinks others may find work but don't earn enough to pay rent in Denver's expensive housing market.

At the St. Francis Center, a daytime homeless shelter, pot is the second most frequently volunteered reason for being in Colorado, after looking for work.

St. Francis executive director Tom Leuhrs also sees an economic reason for the increase of the number of homeless young people. They're having difficulty moving from high school and college to the workforce, Leuhrs said.

"The economy is not supporting them. There are not enough jobs," he said.

Edward Madewell said he was on his way back home to Missouri when he decided to head to Colorado so he could keep smoking the marijuana he uses to control seizures. "I'm not going to stop using something organic. I don't like the pills," he said.

Dusty Taylor, 20, said he moved back to Colorado, where he grew up, to avoid legal problems. "I don't want to catch a felony for smoking," he said.

I would say that the "weed causing homelessness" problem is an artifact of there being only one state where it's explicitly legal.  If all of them legalized it, there'd be no change.

It's kind of like gambling: it's rarely legal, so when a place does legalize it, it becomes a gambling Mecca.  Therefore the local choice isn't so much whether or not gambling should be legal, but whether or not they want to be a gambling Mecca.  It's kind of like the Mexican standoff Moda often talks about: if everybody "lowered their guns" at once, then things would be fine.

News Alert!  Headline:  MODA MEGA MOVE - connections and consequences

Story:  moda moves from Chicago to Leadville, CO.  Buys gun to enjoy freedom after leaving confines of Rahmville.  After debating merits of surplus Russian 308 or American M16 223 decides on Isralie Uzi.  Becomes pot head.  Expanded horizons from altitude sickness and smoking weed lead to belief that pot smoke polutes atmosphere and vows never to shoot gun for fear of tipping the climate balance overboard from the burned gunpowder.  Runs for city council.  Elected by a 97% landslide.  Becomes benovalent dictator of Leadville.  Discovers sweet young thing that is a conservative.  Changes political views.  Becomes Ron Paul supporter.  Divorces sweet young thing after reflecting in deep seated beliefs.  Moves to Antartica to escape conflicted feelings.  Moves into penguin rookery.  Adopted by benovalent penguin dictator.  Remembers he packed his gun for emergencies.  Target practices daily.  One day shoots iceburg that is floating just off shore.  Iceburg collapses into sea from impact of hot bullet.  Resulting Tsunami travels to Atlantic, up the coast, into St. Lawrence seaway, traverses Niagra Falls, makes it to Lake Michigan.  Chicago flooded.  Moda checks internet one day to hear the awful news.  Moda rejoices, he was RIGHT!  Man caused global warming was indeed a reality, and moda was the man that caused it.  If only "they" would have listened.  Retires back to penguin rookery for a nightcap to celebrate.

... Mountaineer

Musta been a real "sweet young thing" to get me to abandon my technocratic statist beliefs.

There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... .html?_r=0

Funny how decisions tend to "belong at the state level" when one disagrees with the federal position and "belong at the federal level" when one disagrees with the state's position.

In other words, decisions "belong" at whatever level agrees with (or is most likely to agree with) one's own opinion on the matter

Tortoise wrote: Funny how decisions tend to "belong at the state level" when one disagrees with the federal position and "belong at the federal level" when one disagrees with the state's position.

In other words, decisions "belong" at whatever level agrees with (or is most likely to agree with) one's own opinion on the matter

Yes, you certainly don't see them endorsing the "firearms freedom acts" many states have passed that are basically the gun equivalent of Colorado and Oregon's full pot legalization in brazen defiance of federal law.

Still, I think it's good to take what one can get. My sense is that this editorial is a game changer. The NY Times is one of the most statist of the liberal publications; if even they're endorsing legalization, the end can't be a long way away!

Tortoise wrote:

There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 ... .html?_r=0

Funny how decisions tend to "belong at the state level" when one disagrees with the federal position and "belong at the federal level" when one disagrees with the state's position.

In other words, decisions "belong" at whatever level agrees with (or is most likely to agree with) one's own opinion on the matter

Decisions belong at the lowest possible level.
Of course, that is the individual.