The Washington initiative--I-502--has problems. In order to get it passed they have placed a tax of 25% on every transaction. This means that the grower pays 25%--the distributor pays 25%--the dispensary pays 25%. By the time the cannabis gets to consumers it will be--at least--as expensive as black market pot (IMO). Practically guaranteeing that the black market will still flourish.

It has been said that this is necessary to get the bill passed--but I worry that seeing a booming black market will be used as an excuse to crack down on legal cannabis.

We'll see.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Very interesting, *quality video and discussion. I would say there is probably some under-reported aggression and violence in Japan- but in general a whole hell of a lot less than anywhere else I have lived. In 3.5 years there- never saw a fight, never saw any violence that I remember - there was one crazy guy who was running around yelling at people - but that's it. Violence by Yakuza does happen, but it seems aggrandised from films. I think Yakuza are mainly loan sharks, brothel owners and black marketeers.

For whatever reason, violence is baked into the US culture - tied in maybe with a rugged frontier individualist spirit. Americans love their guns. My family too. My dad always carried a nickel-plated '38 under his car seat, which he called his "merging assistance device".

>> ^legacy0100:

I would have to partly disagree on this one. I believe high density does attribute to more aggression. Dr. Frans de Waal points out that high density alone does not always lead to aggression, and that there are other factors that attribute to reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. This much I agree with. However, this should not be used to throw away the immense impact over population has on human aggression.
He gives several different examples, one including about the chimpanzees in tight confined space. I find his claims very hard to believe. Chimps get very frustrated and show abnormal, anti-social behavior when they are in a tight confined space for a long period of time. Their hairs fall out, they bite their own knuckles or even each other. They show aggression to inexperienced moms and to their babies. It could be that Dr. de Waal may be omitting some factors in here. The chimps he is referring to may be from a zoo where they are put in small confined space when it's time to goto sleep, but then are let out to a bigger enclosure where they can run and play. This may be a bad example, but we don't really know because he doesn't reveal the source of his data. Perhaps his research did confine the chimps to a tight space all throughout the experiment. If so, then the duration of dwelling in tight enclosure is a big factor, but he didn't cite anything about that either.
I also would like to point out that there's generally a lot less food intake and physical activity in urban Japanese society. Your typical Japanese sushi portions can testify for that, as well as various hikikomori symptoms people suffer in overly populated Japanese cities.
Dr. de Waal says there's less crime in Japan, but this simply isn't true. He is overly reliant on only the statistics reported by the government, and he isn't are of the deep rooted cultural practices that mask these aggressions to the outside world. Dr. De Waal never mentions about the various odd symptoms and personal sacrifice everyone must make in order to maintain the order there. Violence is everyday life in Japanese society, including the fairly well known presence of Yakuza. Japanese people often get bullied by the Yakuza, but they do not report these events because for one, they are afraid of retaliation, and two, Yakuza has deep rooted connections with the government. Yakuza usually do not engage anyone foreign simply because it would get the embassies involved, and they do cannot exert any influence in foreign lands. So they only stick to bullying Japanese people, and stay clear of foreigners. Even in high school physical violence is rampant. Students fight or bully each other all the time, but it is not seen as a crime, but merely 'part of growing up'. Nobody reports anything, so the crime data remains low.
Compare this with cities in Netherlands. It is highly populated, but enjoys abundance of resources thanks to laxed attitude toward drugs and sex, which are themselves ways to alleviate aggression. People in Netherlands are also very mobile because of their well developed transportation infrastructure including extensive bike lanes, roads and trains. They are also in close proximity to larger open areas in Germany or France where they regularly escape to thanks to their abundance in resource, while in Japan people are very much confined to their own living quarters and their workplace, who usually cannot afford to take frequent vacations due to high expectation from bosses as well as fierce competition towards promotion. Imagine regular US/UK office space antics times ten.
Overall I find Dr. de Waal's argument only partially credible and would like to look into his experiments and his citations before acknowledging this as fact.
I remember Dag and his wife saying they used to live in Japan. I would like to hear their opinion about this issue and Japanese society being used as proof to this theory.

>> ^mentality:

@Fletch
"You'll have to stop barking first."
Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.
"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.
How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?
" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."
Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.
The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.
Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.
Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.
SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.
I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.
Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.
Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?
It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.
With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.


Ugh...

Ok, you win, Fanboy. Have fun. I hope it lives up to all your dreams.

@Fletch

"You'll have to stop barking first."

Classy. Nice tone you set for the rest of the discussion.

"Not surprised that you have nothing to say about this, as it is, probably, the primary reason so many former Diablo players won't be playing D3.

How many is so many? Did you do a survey? Diablo's core audience, many of whom continue to play D2 to this day, are those who played D2 on BNET. That's where the meat of the game is, and that's where the community is built around. Who do you think Blizzard keeps on patching and adding new content for, more than a decade after D2's release?

" Nothing in D2 required you to go to "sketchy websites" and spend money. [...] Sure, you still don't have to, but both drops and crafting have been nerfed in order to encourage spending."

Did you know that D2 had a huge online item black market? It has basically the same effect as an auction house, except people had to go to 3rd party vendors for it. But guess what? This kind of stuff only matters if you're playing on the ladder. Want to have a nice quiet solo game, or run through the game with a few friends? Who the hell cares if you have elite gear? Play the beta - they definitely did NOT nerf drops and crafting.

The rest of your post is nonsense. D3's stash size is 10x7, larger than the one in D2. And blizzard manipulating drop rates for players depending on their auction house usage? That's just pure bullshit.

Have you even played D2 or kept up with all the interface "streamlining" in D3 at all? Those pets I mentioned above don't do anything except pick up your gold. Talk about "dumbed-down". This game is headed for consoles.

Those pets were removed from the game due to player feedback. "Streamlining" - have you even played the beta? The additional skill slots make this game LESS console friendly than D2. Face it, D2 was already perfect for consoles. And Torchlight? ALREADY on consoles.

SOME randomized dungeons, last I read. Although, if I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. I said "linear", not "non-random". One does not mean the other. I have little hope you can understand the difference. I'll try to use them both in a sentence for you later.

I said randomized dungeons and quests. If the first time you play the game you get quests ABC, and the second time you play the game you get quests XYZ instead, is that NON-LINEAR enough for you? It looks like you're the kind of person who, rather than play a game, justs makes up bullshit instead and then bitch about it.

Oh, please. The textures look like they shot primary-colored paint balls onto an easel and captured it through a shear stocking.

Like I said, people seem to forget D2's graphics. In D2 you were fighting against red, green, blue, yellow colored monsters while your character was decked out in purple. D2 was cartoony. D3 is less. You complain about D3 being cartoony, then you talk about playing Torchlight? Are you fucking kidding me?

It's Blizzard's loss, not mine. I don't get too emotionally attached to "things". With Torchlight2, Grim Dawn, Path of Exile, and even Legend of Grimrock in the works, I won't miss D3 one bit.

With D3's sales, I doubt Blizzard will miss you one bit. And the Diablo community won't miss you one bit. One less whiny brat to clog up the BNET forums.

Poor people are poor because they make poor economic or social decisions, the same way rich people can be made poor. Fortunately most people learn not to make the same mistakes.

"So, if everyone in the world worked hard enough, could everyone be a millionaire?"

Why is this a 'clever' question? The answer is no, because not every nation in the world has a capitalist system which supports the trade of valuable goods and services for money, or heavily taxes citizenry to the point being "extra" productive is worth it.

The idea that economics is a zero-sum game and that the system is hopelessly rigged are left wing shibboleths. Outside of black markets, there is no such thing as "unregulated capitalism." The socialists have seen to that.




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Great sift, Bill is really getting to the heart of conservative psychology here, which reminds me...
I had a conversation with a conservative friend a few weeks ago, and the conservative used the typical 'poor people are poor because they don't work hard enough' spiel. I responded, "so if a poor person works hard enough, he or she could become a millionaire?" "Yes", the conservative said. (The trap is sprung.) "So, if everyone in the world worked hard enough, could everyone be a millionaire?" No response - the conservative was literally speechless. Put that one in your quiver.

Kinda like they "lost" $12+ billion in Iraq... riiight.

That shit was sold on the black market. And when it surfaces (hopefully never), we'll blame it on Russia.

/speculation (of course)

Based on other videos of his I've seen before, yes, parody and people are taking him way too serious. Of course he is going to buy it and play it. He normally points out the issue then goes "What am I supposed to do..." and gives the solution to the problem, pointing out people are over reacting. He seemed to have missed that part in this "rant" but he was still in character.
The requirement for an Internet connection while playing single player is an issue for those who don't have reliable Internet connections. Steam requires an Internet connection as well, but at least it will still work offline. What if you do play on your laptop and you are at a location that doesn't have WiFi? No Diablo 3 for you then. There seems to be little reason not to just sync once a connection is available and still allow offline play. Yes, most of us will still buy it, but I don't like being limited that way. Now I am guessing the license follows the user, not the PC, like WoW, so while it does in theory limit my portable options, for the most part I probably won't care.
The bigger issue I have is the ability to buy things with real money. This gives an unfair advantage to those who have more money to burn. Of course WoW has a the same issue with people buying gold off the black market, but you have to step well outside the system and take huge risks doing so. Here it is now supported in game. The question of course is how many more people will use that method than would have had it been black market? Even I could buy stuff in WoW for cash I wouldn't, seems to ruin the game to me, but then I don't raid.

>> ^blankfist:
I didn't make an opinion about his comment one way or the other. I'm always impressed to see someone who's not tried pot specifically because it would be breaking the law.


Oh, to be clear, I have tried it like 3 times. Every time because friends offered. The first two times I felt no effect at all, and the 3rd just barely something. I'd try it again if offered, and I'd try it again if it was as easy to get as alcohol or cigarettes. Again, it's not really that I care that it's illegal, but being illegal tends to make it inconvenient and costly. I've also tried absinthe since it was legalized, but would never have cared enough to hunt it down on the black market a few years ago when it was illicit.

I don't think the idea that usage might increase can be ruled out so easily. Personally, all my life I've stayed away from marijuana because it's illegal. It's not that I think every law should be blindly obeyed, but they have made it genuinely inconvenient.I just don't want to deal with drug dealers, I don't want to have to worry about being hassled by the police, I don't want to pay black market prices and get inconsistent quality, and I don't want to smoke in secret. I wouldn't go through that sort of pain in the ass for alcohol either, because I'm just not that crazy about it.

But having said that, why do people who are in favor of legalization care if usage increases? If you believe that people have a right to choose for themselves, why would it matter if it's 10% or 20% of people that decide to partake? It seems like the argument should be that it can be enjoyed responsibly by most, and there should be compassionate help for the people who get dependent. Just like alcohol.

I think the biggest problem is that A--people (Americans) are too stupid and greedy as masses to reasonably be run by their respective states.

Of course it has it's positives and negatives. For one the federal government wouldn't be using blanket-fisted (Sorry for the pun) powers to attack pot smokers for shits and giggles, or prohibit two loving people from marriage simply because businesses don't like the idea of more "benefits." (I.e., gay marriage is strictly a money issue.) And the federal government couldn't declare war on everyone and their mothers.

People ask "why wouldn't slavery return" and all that. Slavery is prohibited in the U.S. constitution. And, let the states decide on minimum wage, child labor laws and such. If you think "the people" are smart enough, let them choose which states they want to reside in; and, therefore, decide what laws should be. If Texas thinks 8 year olds should be forced to work on farms, their wouldn't be many people living there.

I know if I had a pick, it would be a state that; Stopped the drug war, allowed public nudity, allowed me to fish when I want, legalized prostitution (So that the black market is cut down on,) prohibits assault rifles, demands clean water and reasonable environmental protections, allows homosexual couples basic human rights and dignities, and requires parental participation in schools.

I could move to a state that meets all these needs because like minded people tend to gather around one another. However, I don't think Americans would care enough to do this--hell, we barely vote.

Making hard drugs illegal solves nothing. It makes drug usage harder, but in doing so creates a problem much worse: a black market and the lives and resources that are destroyed trying to dominate or prevent it. It truly is no different from alcohol prohibition. Instead of dying of drugs because of parental neglect, now your children will have an opportunity to die:

1. in a gang from a cop or other gang members
2. from a gang as a cop
3. from a gang as a citizen who gets caught in the crossfire
4. from a gang as a citizen who was going to testify against a gang member
5. as a citizen who otherwise might have had a cop in the area to help them if not for their being busy with anti-drug enforcement

It also increases the chance of corruption within the police force because the confiscated substance are of such high market value from the artificial scarcity. Of course, we saw all of this from the 30s with alcohol prohibition, yet don't apply the same logic to all drugs. People are dumb when it comes to weighing cost/benefit ratios. Look at marijuana, marijuana is 1% as dangerous as even alcohol, and people still cling to its prohibition as being worth the costs incurred.

Then there's the philosophical part, which is that you should have the right to do to your body as you wish because you own your body from the day you're born. All rights derive from property. If you can be incarcerated against your will for doing something to yourself, then you are a slave of the state.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

I'm suggesting you join the No State Project and support the thousands of other people who have realized that governments are nothing more that controlling, self-important groups of monkeys playing some game with arbitrary rules.

Like I said, I'm not really all that interested in implementing some radical right-wing ideology.

Even if I were to grant the central flawed premise (government is the root of all evil), no one's ever given me a plausible reason to believe that any stateless society wouldn't turn into one with a state rather quickly.

I have the a similar view about the people far to my left who want to abolish money and markets. Even the Soviet Union wasn't able to prevent a black market from forming -- the incentives to trade are too great, and the means to execute a trade too simple to ever stop it.

Same goes with government. The incentives to form one are too great, and the means to operate one are so ridiculously simple, even children do it.

That's why my interest in politics isn't to try to knock over the table, but to refine both markets and governments so they maximize human welfare.

huh? black market? for horse meat? WTF? you can buy that stuff legally. is horse meat against the law in the US? funny...

>> ^blankfist:

You're trying to prove causation by correlation.
That's a logical fallacy.
If there's a "correlation" between number of deaths and number of guns, that doesn't demonstrate "causation". Answering "I don't know" does not mean I'm dodging. It means I don't know and refuse to speculate.
Sorry that doesn't satisfy you.


Just want to point out that you're committing the Argument from Fallacy fallacy.

RedSky says "I think the US's uniquely high gun ownership rate is the reason the US has a uniquely high homicide rate". You say correlation doesn't prove causation. Fair enough, but it doesn't disprove it either. To pretend it does is another argument from fallacy fallacy.

I do think it's worth saying that if you want to argue that the two aren't related, you need to come up with a plausible alternate hypothesis for the high homicide rates. RedSky suggested one: maybe Americans are just an inherently murderous people.

Certainly this is what the NRA is suggesting when they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". After all, those people in countries with draconian firearm laws couldn't possibly be deterred from using lethal force simply because guns aren't easily obtainable, they'd always just be able to get black market guns, or use a knife, right?

Therefore, a country's homicide rate is just the rate at which it produces citizens that choose to murder, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd actually go so far as to say that's not really a hypothesis, it's the only logical conclusion of the assertions the NRA makes about gun violence. Either they're wrong with their assertions, or Americans are just inherently more murderous than the people in other countries.