←back to thread

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

(apnews.com)
662 points JacobHenner | 1 comments | 30 Apr 24 17:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.445s | source
Show context
mannyv ◴[30 Apr 24 18:15 UTC] No.40214223[source]▶
One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
replies(17): >>40214302 #>>40214371 #>>40214681 #>>40214723 #>>40214802 #>>40214840 #>>40215087 #>>40215094 #>>40215242 #>>40215259 #>>40215926 #>>40216092 #>>40216174 #>>40217047 #>>40217090 #>>40218919 #>>40227379 #
andrewxdiamond ◴[30 Apr 24 18:24 UTC] No.40214371[source]▶
A lot of them have wiggled around this problem by offering “atms” at the cash register. You pay with a debit card, but it’s not a normal transaction, it’s an ATM withdrawal! I don’t understand how the money is vended to the business, but it keeps it out of the store
replies(8): >>40214632 #>>40214642 #>>40214762 #>>40214782 #>>40214788 #>>40214845 #>>40217657 #>>40218370 #
bobthepanda ◴[30 Apr 24 18:56 UTC] No.40214788[source]▶
there is still a lot of cash on site due to the presence of an ATM though, and in the cash registers. the primary problem is that weed shops are incredibly attractive robbery targets due to being one of the few businesses in 2024 that handle large amounts of cash.
replies(4): >>40214821 #>>40214926 #>>40216043 #>>40217348 #
mattmaroon ◴[30 Apr 24 20:39 UTC] No.40216043[source]▶
My brother supervises at a dispensary. They are not attractive robbery targets at all. They have a lot of security. Like a bank, they expect the amount of cash would bring trouble if they were not prepared. Unlike a bank, they don't dispense much cash (just petty change) so they don't even have to leave much in the drawers, which are emptied frequently and dropped into a safe nobody there can access.

They have cash-handling processes similar to a casino, but again, they have much less than a casino or bank to take.

Employee theft is a much bigger problem than robbery, because you can imagine who works at them, but even then, it's hard to get away with.

You'd be much better off robbing a busy gas station or the like.

replies(3): >>40216199 #>>40216348 #>>40216757 #
flawsofar ◴[30 Apr 24 20:52 UTC] No.40216199[source]▶
> you can imagine who works at them

This is disgracefully elitist. White collar crime hurts more people.

replies(4): >>40216652 #>>40218302 #>>40218969 #>>40219102 #
mattmaroon ◴[01 May 24 00:48 UTC] No.40218302[source]▶
I see why you would say that, but you probably have not met very many people who work at a dispensary, I have. My brother got promoted to supervisor in a month for the simple reason that he is the only person who could wait until after work to get high.

He’s told me quite a bit of what goes on there, and I am sure different dispensaries are different, but in any state where it is relatively recently legalized and there aren’t that many, it’s just the biggest stoners working there. You would have to be kind of special to decide to steal things with that much security around, they always get caught

replies(2): >>40218967 #>>40220333 #
flawsofar ◴[01 May 24 02:43 UTC] No.40218967[source]▶
I as a customer an hour ago had a long conversation with a friend I made behind the counter.

Some software engineers do partake of the weed. So yeah I’ve met them.

Tattoos, piercings? They’re just people.

Getting high isn’t a sign of larceny

replies(1): >>40219138 #
mattmaroon ◴[01 May 24 03:18 UTC] No.40219138[source]▶
I didn’t say it was. I just said employee theft is a bigger problem than robbery.
replies(1): >>40219951 #
kelseyfrog ◴[01 May 24 05:51 UTC] No.40219951[source]▶
> you can imagine who works at them

You might want to be more careful then. This empty space is a well known rhetorical device used to allude that you're making a negative judgement about people.

replies(2): >>40221445 #>>40221705 #
rayiner[dead post] ◴[01 May 24 11:03 UTC] No.40221705[source]▶
[flagged]
flawsofar ◴[01 May 24 13:08 UTC] No.40222652[source]▶
Don’t bully people for smoking a plant. Easy.
replies(1): >>40229095 #
rayiner ◴[01 May 24 20:40 UTC] No.40229095[source]▶
Why? Society doesn’t owe you acceptance for your personal choices. For the vast majority of people, smoking marijuana is an anti-social choice that makes them a less productive member of society. Why should anyone have something other than a negative opinion of such a choice?
replies(2): >>40230913 #>>40231492 #
kelseyfrog ◴[01 May 24 23:32 UTC] No.40230913[source]▶
Judging people is wrong. This isn't a controversial statement.
replies(2): >>40230936 #>>40232114 #
eurleif ◴[01 May 24 23:35 UTC] No.40230936[source]▶
"Wrong" is a judgment. Why are you judging people for judging people?
replies(1): >>40231716 #
kelseyfrog ◴[02 May 24 01:19 UTC] No.40231716[source]▶
If you're arguing that judging people is ok, I think you could do a better job than tu quoque.
replies(1): >>40232967 #
eurleif ◴[02 May 24 05:25 UTC] No.40232967[source]▶
"You judged someone on a separate occasion, so you can't object to judging people now" would be tu quoque. What I actually did was point out the internal contradiction in your stated position.
replies(1): >>40242930 #
kelseyfrog ◴[03 May 24 00:53 UTC] No.40242930[source]▶
Sorry, I just don't think that arguing that it's ok to judge people is viable. It seems to be very important to you, however.
replies(1): >>40243064 #
1. eurleif ◴[03 May 24 01:20 UTC] No.40243064[source]▶
I've said a total of four sentences on the matter, none of which hinted at its importance or lack thereof to me, so it's interesting that you've come to that conclusion. Either way, my internal motivations are a non sequitur. You are continuing to take a self-contradictory position by stating that a certain behavior, namely judgment, is not "ok", which constitutes a judgment. You have offered no defense of doing so. Should I conclude that you simply believe that oxymoronic positions can in fact be correct?