New Yorkers with pot convictions will now be the first to get to sell it(politico.com)
politico.com
New Yorkers with pot convictions will now be the first to get to sell it
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/27/new-york-cannabis-social-equity-00053549
48 comments
From the anecdotes I’ve heard, I believe the “legal” cannabis industry is pretty shady. Even the business/professional services that orbit the industry are kind of shady. So I’m kind of amused at the idea of taking a business sector that’s got some issues, and giving a monopoly on it to people who’ve already demonstrated their willingness to break the law.
It's bizarre to discriminate against people for not having broken the law, which is what this does.
It’s bizarre. One of the likely licensees I’m familiar with was basically a member of a crime family (as in a multi-generational related group of criminals) running drugs, guns, and various rackets.
Now they are “victims”. It’s stupid, and half of these folks are just hustling their victimhood status with “partners”.
New York has some of the best farmland in the country, much of which is derelict due to federal and state policy. There’s going to be a boom in business relating to weed, and nonsense like this isn’t going to slow the flow of cash.
Now they are “victims”. It’s stupid, and half of these folks are just hustling their victimhood status with “partners”.
New York has some of the best farmland in the country, much of which is derelict due to federal and state policy. There’s going to be a boom in business relating to weed, and nonsense like this isn’t going to slow the flow of cash.
Would love to read more about how New York state policy is leading to abandoned/unused farms - do you have any link s or books you could point me to? Thanks.
Governments make unjust laws sometimes. When they seek to remedy the negative effects of those laws, that should be applauded as a good thing.
Individually, if I move to NYC from some other place, I didn't participate in the historical lawmaking. Yet, I am punished for it.
I despise any Government favors for "correcting the past". It puts people who have nothing to do with it, in a disadvantaged position.
Unfortunately, this is all too common in progressive cities and largely, the whole progressive agenda with rife with absurdities of this sorts. Collectivist sacrifice over individualism.
Unequal treatment of citizens is how you cause instability in the society.
I despise any Government favors for "correcting the past". It puts people who have nothing to do with it, in a disadvantaged position.
Unfortunately, this is all too common in progressive cities and largely, the whole progressive agenda with rife with absurdities of this sorts. Collectivist sacrifice over individualism.
Unequal treatment of citizens is how you cause instability in the society.
What made them unjust? They were made by elected officials at the time.
Jim Crow laws were also made by elected officials at the time
your second sentence seems entirely unrelated to your first
GP would seem to be approaching justice from a deontological point of view.
As opposed to conseqentialism, in this view, if the laws are made in accordance with agreed and lawful procedure, they are just.
Most people skew towards consequentialism, but not all.
1. https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-deontology...
As opposed to conseqentialism, in this view, if the laws are made in accordance with agreed and lawful procedure, they are just.
Most people skew towards consequentialism, but not all.
1. https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-deontology...
That's not what deontology implies at all. You conflating normative rules with legal constructs.
The problem is that this way of thinking concludes with “everyone is evil in the long run”.
Or that morality isn't absolute. Society's perception of morality shifts over time which is a part of what drives the changing of laws. If you accept this though then that means a shifting of agreed upon morality is a part of the system and what is normal today may be distasteful tomorrow and despicable in a decade.
This isn't exclusive to laws though anyhow. If you believe morality can be better tomorrow than today then you have to accept either being immoral today or only relatively moral to your own time.
This isn't exclusive to laws though anyhow. If you believe morality can be better tomorrow than today then you have to accept either being immoral today or only relatively moral to your own time.
The punishment was grossly disproportionate to the crime, and the laws were enforced selectively against poor and minorities.
By this logic, there are no unjust laws ever? They’re all perfect because they were made by elected officials - who are obviously never corrupt or selfish, or lobbied by others?
In fact, why do we even change laws? We must aim to only make new non-overlapping laws preserving the integrity of our previous ones.
In fact, why do we even change laws? We must aim to only make new non-overlapping laws preserving the integrity of our previous ones.
In many other states, the punitive approach was favored: everybody with a record was forbidden from the industry. That, combined with the exorbitant tax rate, encouraged the black market to continue operating. By offering people a path to legitimization, you have a hope of meaningfully reducing criminality. With the puritanical fire and brimstone model, you push the criminals into other markets, like fentanyl.
I realize this is going to come off sounding like Godwyn's law (FWIW I'm Jewish and I also was arrested with pot), but the people who broke the law were breaking an unjust law.
In WWII, people hiding the Jews were breaking the law; people killing them were following orders.
Now we celebrate the people who broke the law, and vilify the people who followed it.
I realize it's a completely different situation, but perhaps this actually gives a benefit to those who have been disadvantaged by the previous policy. It's not as good as monetary compensation, but I can't see a world in which the state has enough money to compensate all the victims of the war on drugs.
In WWII, people hiding the Jews were breaking the law; people killing them were following orders.
Now we celebrate the people who broke the law, and vilify the people who followed it.
I realize it's a completely different situation, but perhaps this actually gives a benefit to those who have been disadvantaged by the previous policy. It's not as good as monetary compensation, but I can't see a world in which the state has enough money to compensate all the victims of the war on drugs.
I will agree with you that it is a totally different situation.
Can you also agree that there are fundamental similarities? No one is being punished for following a law, people are being rewarded for rebelling against an unconstitutional law while everyone else just ignored it or got lucky and were never caught.
The law forbidding selling or consuming pot was not uncostitutional nor was it a violation of human rights. It was just a controversial law that was changed.
If you approve of a "rebellion" against this law, as opposed to just some democratic change of legislation, I wonder how would you handle other regulative norms... If the US decides to allow selling Kinder eggs should we reward the previous smugglers?
Of course this assumes that you don't expand your definition of "human rights" to include the absolute right of consuming cannabis. But, you see, it's difficult enough to agree that the right not to be killed for your religion is a fundamental human right. We got there thankfully but not without hiccups. When you expand "human rights" to include everything you want you are making that expression controversial end devoid of value - because less and less people will agree with you.
If you approve of a "rebellion" against this law, as opposed to just some democratic change of legislation, I wonder how would you handle other regulative norms... If the US decides to allow selling Kinder eggs should we reward the previous smugglers?
Of course this assumes that you don't expand your definition of "human rights" to include the absolute right of consuming cannabis. But, you see, it's difficult enough to agree that the right not to be killed for your religion is a fundamental human right. We got there thankfully but not without hiccups. When you expand "human rights" to include everything you want you are making that expression controversial end devoid of value - because less and less people will agree with you.
You could euphemize just about any basic human right this way. I don't buy it. Your rhetoric is thin and transparent.
Don't forget a large part of the American Revolution exactly dealt with these kinds of material "regulations", to which the American people and British government disagreed were an issue of human rights.
Don't forget a large part of the American Revolution exactly dealt with these kinds of material "regulations", to which the American people and British government disagreed were an issue of human rights.
Was Al Capone breaking unjust laws smuggling alcohol?
It's bizarre that we let Nixon start a ware against a plant as a facade for destroying Jewish and Black activist communities. The government discriminated against them first with something that shouldn't have been illegal to begin with. This is an acknowledgement of that reality.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying?" Ehrlichman told Baum.
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Yes, Nixon, that horrible man for criminalizing heroin! So racist! Imagine if we were all free from this oppression to shoot up any time!
My god man.
My god man.
>It's bizarre that we let Nixon start a ware against a plant as a facade for destroying Jewish and Black activist communities.
The actual situation is much more nuanced than that. The war was also supported by many black leaders and drug makers at the time.
>But early on, many African-American leaders championed those same tough-on-crime policies.
>The Rev. George McMurray was lead pastor at the Mother A.M.E. Zion Church in Harlem in the 1970s, when the city faced a major heroin epidemic. He called for drug dealers to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. [...]
>Black support for the drug war didn't just grow in New York alone. At the federal level, members of the newly formed Congressional Black Caucus met with President Richard Nixon, urging him to ramp up the drug war as quickly as possible. [...]
>Voting records show that many black lawmakers supported some of the most punitive drug-war-era laws in America. But even some people who have long opposed harsh sentencing laws understand where supporters were coming from. The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a longtime pastor in New York, once was addicted to heroin and served time. He's convinced that black leaders who embraced the drug war did serious harm to the community, but says a lot of African-Americans were desperate for ways to make their neighborhoods safe again. "If you're the victim, then you don't want to hear anything about treatment, just, 'Get this guy off the street.' "
The actual situation is much more nuanced than that. The war was also supported by many black leaders and drug makers at the time.
>But early on, many African-American leaders championed those same tough-on-crime policies.
>The Rev. George McMurray was lead pastor at the Mother A.M.E. Zion Church in Harlem in the 1970s, when the city faced a major heroin epidemic. He called for drug dealers to spend the rest of their lives behind bars. [...]
>Black support for the drug war didn't just grow in New York alone. At the federal level, members of the newly formed Congressional Black Caucus met with President Richard Nixon, urging him to ramp up the drug war as quickly as possible. [...]
>Voting records show that many black lawmakers supported some of the most punitive drug-war-era laws in America. But even some people who have long opposed harsh sentencing laws understand where supporters were coming from. The Rev. Herbert Daughtry, a longtime pastor in New York, once was addicted to heroin and served time. He's convinced that black leaders who embraced the drug war did serious harm to the community, but says a lot of African-Americans were desperate for ways to make their neighborhoods safe again. "If you're the victim, then you don't want to hear anything about treatment, just, 'Get this guy off the street.' "
It's actually very straightforward
Ehrlichman told Baum. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Ehrlichman told Baum. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
It's even simpler: Heroin is really a terrible thing and should have been criminalized much earlier, and weed is an 'on the fence' substance which was made illegal in most of the Western world, not just the USA (inc. Vietnam, Brazil, Japan, Soviet Union etc.), thereby throwing to the wind your ridiculous conspiracy theories, and suggesting it was a broad civilizational issue that we are adjusting over time.
What was unjust was the laws demonizing weed. They have absolutely ruined these peoples lives with these garbage convictions, since having a federal felony on your record automatically rules you out of numerous jobs. So it’s only natural to offer recourse for past garbage decisions.
>So it’s only natural to offer recourse for past garbage decisions.
Except that's a terrible way of offering "recourse". It really only benefits the people who are able to start a business, which probably means they're already financially well off. Every other convict gets nothing. Overall the policy seems similar to admissions policies at colleges that favor black students. They're trying to right some wrong, but the policy is so poorly targeted that it ends up benefiting primarily blacks who are already well off (and probably the least negatively affected by past discrimination), whereas poorer blacks who are actually suffering from the effects of past discrimination get nothing.
Except that's a terrible way of offering "recourse". It really only benefits the people who are able to start a business, which probably means they're already financially well off. Every other convict gets nothing. Overall the policy seems similar to admissions policies at colleges that favor black students. They're trying to right some wrong, but the policy is so poorly targeted that it ends up benefiting primarily blacks who are already well off (and probably the least negatively affected by past discrimination), whereas poorer blacks who are actually suffering from the effects of past discrimination get nothing.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You had a choice and fortune favours the bold.
When the USSR dissolved some of those who took risks became uber rich.
When the USSR dissolved some of those who took risks became uber rich.
Like who? Most of the oligarchs aren’t so much risk takers as they were friends with the right people at the right time and so got to buy state industry for pennies on the dollar
When every citizen in Russia was given shares of these properties most saw them as worthless and sold them. The ones who collected and gathered enough to take over control did. Not really gifts from the right people...
Think about that for 2 seconds. If everyone else had to sell their shares because they were desperately poor, where did the oligarchs get the capital to buy all the shares? Do you really think they were just average folks who made good stock trades?
Buying shares is not, by the way, how most oligarchs made their money. Rigged auctions and embezzlement were far more common.
Buying shares is not, by the way, how most oligarchs made their money. Rigged auctions and embezzlement were far more common.
Having capital or access to resources is different than some government power handing companies over. Many with resources didn't risk those to try to obtain shares. No one said it was an even playing field but opportunity existed.
Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk. This is not an even playing field either.
Facebook asked you for your hotmail password and emailed all of your friends. No one can do that now. Fortune favours the bold and punishes the copycat
Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk. This is not an even playing field either.
Facebook asked you for your hotmail password and emailed all of your friends. No one can do that now. Fortune favours the bold and punishes the copycat
> Fortune favours the bold
Or rather corrupt politicians, oligarchs & murderers. At least according to your USSR example.
> Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk
I seriously doubt most of those skills are really transferable to the post legalization market in any meaningful way…
Or rather corrupt politicians, oligarchs & murderers. At least according to your USSR example.
> Many were selling drugs when it was illegal and picked up valuable skills that can be used to leap over others who didn't take the risk
I seriously doubt most of those skills are really transferable to the post legalization market in any meaningful way…
There’s obviously a ton of skill carryover on the farming of it - regardless of the legal status, the skills/knowledge required to grow it doesn’t really change. It’s still the same plant, after all. If that’s true, why does it seem ludicrous to suggest there aren’t other skills to transfer over? Some of the customer base is even still the same people.
I’m not sure if growing is the hard part, however even here I would expect most people who have professional experience in legal agriculture to be better at it than underground pot growers. Is growing weed really that different than tomatoes or avocados?
The conditions and constraints for legal growers are very different. Even more so if we consider distribution and retail.
The conditions and constraints for legal growers are very different. Even more so if we consider distribution and retail.
Then you go into selling. Superior product knowledge, personal usage provides additional context to buyer. Understanding common language terms, history and they provide an authentic point of view.
The distribution side is easier under legalization but experience provides additional benefits. The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Growing avocados is very different compared to growing tomatoes and it is different than growing grapes for ice wine. Can someone who grows tomatoes become a great wine maker? They can and have a better chance compared to the average person but those skills don't translate one to one. I would prefer to hire someone who made wine before over tomato grower because there is a learning curve.
The distribution side is easier under legalization but experience provides additional benefits. The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Growing avocados is very different compared to growing tomatoes and it is different than growing grapes for ice wine. Can someone who grows tomatoes become a great wine maker? They can and have a better chance compared to the average person but those skills don't translate one to one. I would prefer to hire someone who made wine before over tomato grower because there is a learning curve.
Maybe you’re right. I just assumed that people producing and selling illegal drugs dedicated most of their time in solving problems which wouldn’t exist in a legal environment.
> The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Right, I would assume the most important skill here would be doing all of this without being detected by the police. E.g. you might loss X% of you stash due to spoilage once in a while but you’d still come out ahead over someone who takes much more care over his product but get’s caught.
> The storage, handling and processing are separate skills that take awhile to learn.
Right, I would assume the most important skill here would be doing all of this without being detected by the police. E.g. you might loss X% of you stash due to spoilage once in a while but you’d still come out ahead over someone who takes much more care over his product but get’s caught.
I see the disadvantage people without convictions have when it comes to acquiring licenses as functionally equivalent to the poor not having the capital to start a business.
Labelling one "discrimination" and not the other is, to be polite, silly.
Some people would call the fact that a poor person can't muster the resources for entrepreneurial self-actualization discrimination. Some people wouldn't.
In this case, I would lean on the wisdom of my long-departed grandfather: "Life is unfair, deal with it."
Life is unfair, sometimes it is unfair in a direction you're not accustomed.
Labelling one "discrimination" and not the other is, to be polite, silly.
Some people would call the fact that a poor person can't muster the resources for entrepreneurial self-actualization discrimination. Some people wouldn't.
In this case, I would lean on the wisdom of my long-departed grandfather: "Life is unfair, deal with it."
Life is unfair, sometimes it is unfair in a direction you're not accustomed.
FWIW, San Francisco did this too when introducing its rules for license for adult use, with those disadvantaged by convictions getting a year or so head start.
Seems a 14th amendment violation