Ironically, because we are too stupid a species to put willingly pit ourselves through any austerity on a large scale. No one is will accept less than they have it seems, even though the only people who would actually need to downgrade their lives are the ultra wealthy. It doesn’t make it any easier though because they hold all the power. And they use their propaganda power to tell us to change our lifestyle choices, while they flaunt their own wealth. They tell us to choose more expensive “eco-friendly” or “ethical” options most of us can’t afford, and so are encouraged to feel guilty for failing to buy. And they buy them of course, but then still drive million dollar cars and own multiple multimillion dollar mansions.

We’ve really got to find a way to stop fucking over ourselves like this. And we’ve got to do it by somehow getting the richest people and organizations of the world on board. Violent revolution has rarely worked long term, and it’s slipping further and further away as security technology gets more powerful. Nevermind drones and the inevitable rise of autonomous weapons systems. The “rabble” will never have access to these ordinances. So we’ve got to get in their heads. Trick them into doing the right thing enough to see that as the challenge to which their should commit their wealth.

They could also commit to giving 10% of their personal income or 2.5% of the value of their ne worth (whichever is greater) to the most effective charities now, while they’re waiting for the taxes to come.

Chris Anderson (of TED) has suggested this and had the math run, and worked out if every ultra wealthy person on record in the world did this it would generate enough money solve basically all pressing concerns to do with poverty and climate many times over (so we don’t even need all of them).

It’s never going to happen though, because Chris hasn’t accounted for the fact that most people who acquire wealth to this degree are some degree of sociopathic or at the very least believe somehow they’re entitled to be as wealthy as they are. So we need government regulation. Problem is we need it everywhere all at once, or these people just move their wealth around which can still severely damage the economy. But some countries, especially smaller ones, need to be brave. Europe taxes their wealthy reasonably well, and it’s clear it makes living in those nations better. More need to lead by example.

Absolutely, unless they’re also drinking - but then weed may also be mitigating some of alcohol’s worst effects. Alcohol reduces inhibition, while weed often causes anxiety. Alcohol increases propensity for violent behavior, while weed usually calms you down.

It’s also important to point out, it’s still illegal for kids to be doing either if the things in the first place.

Make smoking around others outside or in public without other’s consent illegal (i.e. you can complain to police if you don’t like the smell), and introduce a rule you can only smoke on licensed premises (with smoking rooms) or at home.

That’s what some places have done with tobacco smoking. It is basically harassment or assault in my view to have people consume your second hand smoke and smells.

Edibles on the outer hand, or if you create flavored vapes that don’t smell much or travel far in the air, all good.

Lack of creativity among conservatives is never surprising.

Also it’s already illegal for kids to do weed, smoke or drink.