News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected. Parent comment

Re:Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected by tptacek on Saturday February 22, 2014 @04:16PM (#7283638)
Why is that hilarious? The article isn't advocating against legalization (no Slate article ever would). It's suggesting that you can't simply look at one revenue stream in isolation, because a regulatory change that boosts one revenue stream might suppress another. Which is obviously true.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected by SandersAK on Saturday February 22, 2014 @04:21PM (#7283659)
Might is the key word.

Lots of things "Might" happen. But it's all just speculation without any sort of insight or evidence.

If he had cited reports, studies etc. in other states, or even countries that showed ANYTHING it would be helpful.

Instead he links to another Slate article (his own) with the same speculation, again with no sources or citation.

It'd be like if I wrote this:

"WhatsApp might be the worst thing that happened to Facebook. Imagine if everyone stops using WhatsApp because they hate facebook. That would be disastrous. Or what if they all use facebook and then stop using WhatsApp, that could be good or bad too.

Regardless, Facebook has a lot on its hands now."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected by md224 on Saturday February 22, 2014 @05:31PM (#7283921)
Yglesias is simply pointing out a dynamic which he feels may be under-appreciated: the impact of cannabis sales on the purchase and consumption of other intoxicants. He isn't saying it will go one way or another, but merely drawing attention to this dynamic and its potential implications.

A lot of useful information follows the format of "X may affect Y in one way or another, and we need to be cognizant of how these potential interactions could impact relevant issues." Your dismissal of Yglesias conjecture as useless is, in my opinion, missing the point. Just because we don't yet have data on a specific measure doesn't mean we can't discuss why that measure is significant and worth our attention.

[ Parent | on HN ]