
Stop Treating Marijuana Like Heroin - okket
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opinion/a-small-victory-for-more-sensible-marijuana-policies.html
======
poof131
The DEA needs to go bye bye, and be replaced by the DRA, Drug Rehabilitation
Agency. While I respect the risks operational agents take against crime
syndicates, the war on drugs is a disaster. Even the government’s own RAND
corporation concluded enforcement is far worse than rehabilitation, with rehab
being 7 times more effective than policing, 400 times more effective then
border interdiction, and 800 times more effective than actions in source
countries.[1] Not to mention the privacy violations it’s enabled. If the goal
is to reduce drug use, the US policies are stupid. If the goal is for
politicians to sound tough and maintain a never ending drug war so they can
keep sounding tough, then it’s a success.

And letting the DEA decide what is Schedule 1 is like letting the fox guard
the hen house. I’ve never heard of a government agency voluntarily reducing
its scope and budget. Just more of our leadership deferring responsibility to
so called “experts” with a vested interest. A pretty rampant phenomenon these
days ranging from the banks to the military.

[1] [http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-
review/issues/RRR-...](http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-
review/issues/RRR-spring95-crime/treatment.html)

~~~
themartorana
Good God, 7x, 400x, and 800x! How is continued marching down a ruinous path
and destroying lives in the wake not entirely criminal, if not a massive human
rights violation?

~~~
coldtea
Because human rights is what the powerful call that.

------
martinald
While I'm totally for drug (all drugs - not just cannabis)
legalisation/regulation, I do think the "dangers" of marijuana have been
really downplayed over the last few years.

I know a lot of people at university who got into smoking it very often and
basically lost 10+ years of their life to complete apathy to anything. Some
have now stopped and are totally different people - just 10 years behind.

While it doesn't cause overdose, cirrhosis or criminal activity from the user,
it does become very addictive for some people and causes them to be extremely
unmotivated in their life.

Is this as bad as heroin or crack? No obviously not, but a lot of people end
up really trapped by it.

~~~
Donzo
And I have anecdotal evidence of people smoking marijuana everyday for 10-20
years and remaining extremely productive.

Oftentimes drug use is a symptom of a greater psychological problem/issue.
Perhaps the underlying issues are causing the negative behaviors and the drugs
are only enabling it.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>anecdotal evidence of people smoking marijuana everyday for 10-20 years and
remaining extremely productive. //

What roles, in what areas, have they risen to in this time?

~~~
theAnonMe
I've smoked for 15+ years, I earn in the top 5% of the UK writing software for
big players if that is a metric you respect. Only as a software developer
although I've had the opportunity to be "promoted" I chose to write code...for
more money. However I recognize that the amount I am smoking of current is
affecting my cognitive load (I think). If I was drinking alcohol in the same
amount I smoke cannabis I'd be an alcoholic like my father. Hmmm, wonder if
there is a genetics issue...

~~~
imaginology
I've got high almost daily for the past 15 years. I'm also a programmer and I
am proud of what I have accomplished. A year ago I quit smoking and started
preparing and eating edibles instead. This was for health reasons but another
benefit is that I am now able to dose myself much more precisely. There is a
level which improves my productivity and focus, where I really feel in the
zone. Sometimes when I am trying to solve a difficult problem, getting high
helps me to break through.

------
contemporary2u
The big question is why drugs are illegal at all?

Drugs are a multi trillion dollar business. 100's of billions of dollars
turning the wheels of the shadow economy every day.

Who stands to lose all that money if drugs were legalized? Who is involved in
drug business? think of all of the players in the chain..

We know examples of developed countries where drugs are legalized and everyone
did not become a junkie over night, or next week, or next year.

Drug money fuels a lot of things in this world, entire countries are built and
destroyed using drug money, new political systems are built and presidents
elected using drug money. It is convenient "invisible" hand that makes a lot
of things happen in this world.

Drug problem is not about me or you becoming a junkie. Its about money, a lot
of money, its about economical and political power that comes with it.

The day when drugs are legalized the convenient way to make lots of money out
of "thin air" all of the sudden would be gone...

Hearings on the CIA and Drug Trafficking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0Z2XmzBDw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km0Z2XmzBDw)

John Kerry committee:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFr5K8zJRA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFr5K8zJRA)

Police Officer Mike Ruppert (dead now, shot in the head 2 years ago) Confronts
CIA Director John Deutch on Drug Trafficking:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk)

~~~
sfifs
Past experiences with widespread drug availability and addiction suggest
social cohesion is lost as people become dependent on the next fix.

Look up the history of opium war in China or for more recent experiences, drug
problems in Punjab India or the drug dependency in the Middle East .

~~~
adrusi
In the Opium Wars, opium was illegal. It wasn't much of a risk to smokers, but
it drove the cost up and drove the trade underground. Social cohesion is lost
when addicts can't go through socially acceptable avennues to get the next fix
they're dependent on.

If you can just pick up your fix from the corner store like alcoholics can,
then you won't expect social cohesion to be affected any more than it is by
alcoholics, especially since many of the people who might become addicts after
legalization were likely to become alcoholics anyway.

------
will_brown
>The D.E.A. and the F.D.A. insist that there is not enough scientific evidence
to justify removing marijuana from Schedule 1. This is a disingenuous
argument; the government itself has made it impossible to do the kinds of
trials and studies that could produce the evidence that would justify changing
the drug’s classification.

This can not be overstated. I recently discussed a prior client of mine on HN
who is one of the few patients who receive the federally authorized marijuana
from University of Mississippi (at a dosage of 360 joints/month). My client
has a rare bone disease and has been in the federal program for over 30 years,
one of my clients biggest complaints is that while he wanted studies to be
conducted regarding the use/effects of marijuana the Government has refused.

~~~
xrstf
Is your client possibly the same person who was interviewed for Penn &
Teller's "Bullshit" on the "War on Drugs" episode[1]?

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQS910WVlKc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQS910WVlKc)

~~~
will_brown
That's him. I don't generally mention him by name, but as you can tell he is
an outspoken and public figure as it relates to both his disease and unique
treatment. For example, I represented him in a corporate capacity totally
unrelated to that aspect of his life, yet he took every opportunity to inform
and educate me about his story.

------
thisjustinm
The biggest change I've seen since marijuana was legalized here in Colorado is
that pot isn't just one type (just like beer isn't just lagers, etc). There's
hundreds of strains and some are VERY different than the others (again think
Guinness vs bud light vs your favorite IPA, etc).

You can walk into a dispensary here and choose your levels and mix of THC and
CBD - want 20%+ THC for an intense high? Maybe 15% CBD with no THC for almost
no psychoactive high but a focus on pain relief / relaxing? All that and
everything in between is available.

As research into all the other cannabinoids increases I expect to see their
breakdowns included on labels as well.

And that's where the analogy to alcohol breaks down - there's typically just
one active ingredient in beer but dozens in pot. And the different strains can
deliver various ratios of the cannabinoids to create very different effects.

Bottom line is that I could easily see how if you only ever experienced
illegal pot i.e. no choice and low quality I think you are likely to hold a
different view on it than if you'd experienced the variety and nuance of legal
pot.

------
arcticbull
Stop treating addiction as a legal problem and treat it as a public health
problem, like Portugal. Decriminalize all substances and push addicted to
treatment programs. And just legalize pot entirely, one of these is not like
the others (at least Canada is leading the way there).

~~~
azurezyq
It may need a good government, which is hard. E.g, I don't think SF can manage
to handle so many homeless addictions. Yes, ideally it can be managed in this
way. In fact, it's hard to be carried out. And the result would be
catastrophic.

~~~
arcticbull
Maybe the $30-60,000 per year spent to incarcerate every low level drug
offender could help. And it's not like they're avoiding managing it now
between policing, encampments and incarceration. Not to mention health costs.

~~~
rayiner
Very few non-violent drug offenders are incarcerated.

~~~
mastax
[http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf)

\- More than a third (35%) of drug offenders in federal prison at sentencing,
had either no or minimal criminal history— lowest criminal history category.

\- Nearly a quarter (24%) of drug offenders in federal prison used a weapon in
their most recent offense.

Which is to say over 3/4 of them did not.

~~~
will_brown
There may be 2 seperate issues, so I think the question is:

Do the inmates in federal prison qualify as _low level drug offenders_?

Moreover, the term being discussed isn't a legal term with a definition, so as
a result everyone kind of has their own opinion as to what qualifies. So for
example, when I think of _low level drug offenders_ forget people in federal
prison and I would also think the vast majority of inmates in state prison
fall outside my definition. Basically, when I think _low level drug offender_
I am thinking about people who are in county jails.

Edit: Your citation explains the vast majority of those first time offenders
in federal prison are there for drug trafficking, that is why I discard
federal prison as _low level_.

~~~
arcticbull
My perspective on smuggling is that it can be non-violent (concealing a
substance to get it through the a port of entry) and is a natural response to
criminalization of a substance that people want but is being artificially
constrained. Further, this question maybe entirely immaterial as I'd imagine
the bulk of this would go away completely with legalization and safe access. I
think we'd be left with the same levels of smuggling as we see with
cigarettes.

~~~
rayiner
It might be a natural response, but that doesn't mean it should be legal.
There is a big difference between making it illegal to consume a product that
hurts you, and making it illegal to produce and sell a product that hurts the
people who buy it.

~~~
arcticbull
Agreed 100%, I'm saying that if we're deciding to treat this as a public
health problem, provide safe/monitored/controlled access officially (like
cigarettes) then the illegal network dries up as a side-effect. I'm not saying
we should legalize to get rid of traffickers, I'm saying that legalizing for
public health reasons will by consequence get rid of the traffickers.

------
snarfy
I've been a daily user for about 30 years now. It's more like coffee and
cigarettes than it is like heroin or alcohol.

~~~
crazydude202
I didn't realize marijuana caused cancer.

~~~
FreeFull
Any kind of smoke inhalation will cause cancer

~~~
arca_vorago
Smoking isnt the only way to consume mj, btw. Tinctures, edibles, lotions, lip
balms, etc all offer alternatives. From what I understand vaping reduces plant
particulate the most, but the high temps can hurt throats, so an ideal setup
would be a vape through a bong.

~~~
ryanlol
Dabbing is something worth looking at too, shares the benefits of vapes but
generally requires far fewer hits.

Just gotta watch the dosage so you don't accidentally end up stuck on the
couch for the rest of the day.

------
Fifer82
I am in the UK and have been smoking cannabis daily now for 12 years. Legal or
not.... does it look like I care?? At the end of the day, I am a nice guy, I
help people out, I have held down a 10 year happy relationship and do pretty
well at my job. I also keep fit and "healthy".

I don't care if I die, so take that away from me, and literally there is no
valid argument to stop me enjoying a smoke.

Fuck the Police.

------
god_bless_texas
So we're looking to an enforcement agency to make legal one of the very things
that justifies its existence?

------
Mz
My observation has been that drugs don't really fuck up people's lives. People
with fucked up lives turn to drugs and then, when they are ready to get their
act together, they also get off the drugs. Then blame the problems on the drug
use.

I am pretty much a tea-totaller. I am also allergic to marijuana, so I have no
desire to be around it. But I have known people in person and read articles
and the like. One example that comes to mind: 16 year old boy's brother is
gruesomely murdered, he becomes an addict or alcoholic and when he is 19 he
decides to get clean and sober. So, he's had three years to process his grief
and he is now a legal adult, not a helpless legal minor who can't do much
about anything wrong in his life. Now, he wants to be sober and talks trash
about what a bad person he was for using/drinking and blah blah blah.

My best guess: It is easier and/or more socially acceptable to blame drugs
than to admit that life really shat on them, their parents are assholes,
whatever. But, in most cases, it looks to me like they use for a reason and if
that underlying reason gets better, then they will tend to stop using.

I am fond of the book "The truth about addiction and recovery" which basically
takes this view.

------
aaron695
Stop demonizing heroin.

To be honest, not sure what is right here.

Is it ok to demonise interracial marriage while trying to get the minority the
right to vote?

Does the end justify the means?

But if you think heroin is a demon and marijuana(or alcohol) is ok you are
sadly mistaken.

~~~
e40
_But if you think heroin is a demon and marijuana(or alcohol) is ok you are
sadly mistaken._

1 of the 3 is ok, by some definition of ok. My definition: doesn't have
serious health effects and users can (and do) live normal lives.

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
I can't for the life of me work out which one you think is OK. Neither
marijuana nor alcohol, in non-excessive quantities, will necessarily cause
serious health effects, and people consume either whilst living perfectly
'normal' lives.

~~~
aaron695
Personally I'd rate marijuana the worst.

Obviously many people use heroin and have normal lives.

Alcohol is destroying, but in incidents rather than marijuana which I think is
long term damage.

Heroin destroying lives is so complicated because most of it is societal
based, it's not the drug destroying lives in current society.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Heroin destroying lives is so complicated because most of it is societal
> based, it 's not the drug destroying lives in current society._

How is this different from marijuana?

~~~
vidarh
It isn't. It's just that the effects of heroin use today is much worse, even
though the drug if consumed in reasonable quantities of medical grade supply
is one of the safer opiates.

The biggest problem with heroin is an adulterated supply, cut with anything
from other - often more dangerous - drugs to brick dust, putting the user at
substantial health risk both due to the stuff they've put in it and due to
uneven doses.

The second biggest problem is societal condemnation that makes it hard for
those who function well on heroin to seek help if something goes wrong.

Marijuana is less likely to be mixed with other crap, and you're less likely
to face condemnation if you tell someone you use it.

Other than that, heroin has a higher _potential_ to cause damage in itself.
You certainly can overdose on it, and damage yourself seriously with it in
ways you'd find impossible with marijuana. But you _can_ also use heroin your
whole life with few ill effects if you have a clean and predictable supply.

In terms of addiction we like to treat heroin is if it is insanely addictive,
but there's little indication it's worse than alcohol in that respect (not
that alcohol is a standard to aspire to when it comes to addiction potential).

------
mark_l_watson
I like to listen to Catherine Austin Fitts who was the undersecretary of HUD
in the George H. Bush administration. Catherine often says "follow the money."

Unfortunately there are a lot of vested interests, organizations that make a
ton of money from the cruel Marijuana laws: private corporations running
prisons, police unions/organizations, and I would argue the big pharmaceutical
companies (because Marijuana is a good natural pain killer). The war of drugs
is a high-profit business.

------
sandworm101
The OP speaks of a lack of studies due to a lack of supply. That's incorrect.
There are plenty of studies and plenty of research-grade marijuana out there.
There is just very little American material. The plant has been studied in
Canada and Europe with plenty of material available from a variety of
producers.

Canadian government's list of sanctioned providers:

[http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php](http://www.hc-
sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/list-eng.php)

Their trade association:

[http://cann-can.ca/](http://cann-can.ca/)

The growing supply of research-grade material:

[http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/medical-
ma...](http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/medical-marijuana-a-
growing-field-for-university-researchers-in-canada/)

So stop harping on about a lack of research. The fact that a medical substance
hasn't been studies within the magic bounds of a particular country should be
irrelevant to any reasonable person.

------
mahranch
Stop treating Heroin like heroin. That's the very reason why we have so many
opiate addicts. As a former opiate user who almost fell down the rabbit hole
(unfortunately, my brother eventually _did_ fall down that hole), by
demonizing heroin, you set it apart from other opiates like Codiene, Vicodin,
and Percocet/Oxycontin. It's not any different from those drugs. I found out
the hard way. All of those drugs are opiates and if you were to snort heroin
and if you were to snort Oxycontin, you would almost certainly prefer the
oxycontin. It's a much cleaner, longer lasting high while the heroin high
kinda blows. Taking it in pill form isn't any different. Heroin is only sorta
useful when it's taken IV or smoked, but heating it up destroys the compounds
which get you high so it's not a very good ingestion route.

Pure heroin is quite harmless by itself (provided you didn't take too much).
People can live a full and complete life totally addicted heroin with probably
less risks than even pot. The problem of heroin is never direct -- it
kills/harms via overdose (misjudging a dose, or doing the same amount after
your tolerance drops) or the most common "overdose" we hear of is when
Fentanyl gets cut into your heroin (Yes, Fentanyl is _way_ more potent than
heroin and hospitals prescribe it all the time). The other ways people die is
by mixing heroin with other stuff, namely xanax. You virtually never hear of
someone just dying from heroin alone. And have you ever heard of someone
getting lung cancer from their heroin?

The drug itself isn't like crack or meth where doing it for an extended period
of time can permanently turn you crazy (Psychosis). Or kill you from
exhaustion/sleep deprivation. People can take it for decades and show no
obvious signs (functioning addict). The drug is always labeled "super hard" by
the same people carrying around Percocets in their purse. But that's OK
because they got it from a dentist/doctor. Percocet is oxycontin mixed with
Acetaminophen and Oxy is almost as strong as heroin per mg. Demonizing heroin
while you're taking vicodin or oxy is so hypocritical that there should be a
new word invented for it, something that means "more than hypocritical".

Heroin's problem lies in that it really doesn't have a great medical
application. What it does, other drugs now do literally (not figuratively)
1000x better. But heroin is incredibly cheap to make (relatively speaking) and
provides a unique rush when taken IV. There are other drugs (like Demerol)
which provide that same rush but hospitals instead inject it into your fatty
tissue (ass) so it's slow to release (so you can't get the rush). So why don't
drug kingpins make that stuff instead? Because those pharmaceuticals (like
Vicodin, Demerol, and Fentanyl) require complex processes (many steps) and
expensive labs to make well, and it's way more expensive than Heroin. Not just
cost-wise but also time-wise. When you're out in some back-country in
Afghanistan mixing your freshly dried Opium in a vat of Acetone to dissolve
it, you're on the clock to get in and out with the product or the boss is
going to be pissed.

I realize I'm starting to rant but that's because I myself always though
"drugs are bad!" then I tried pot. Realized it wasn't that bad, safer than
alcohol. That same "Well that's not so bad" happened to me with heroin. After
snorting it I was actually disappointed and thought I was ripped off. I didn't
realize it wasn't stronger than Oxycontin. I thought it was orders of
magnitude stronger than these harmless little pills my dentist gave me when I
got my wisdom teeth pulled. I was wrong. And that lack of understanding is
what almost threw me down the rabbit hole.

------
davidf18
A problem is that women are smoking marijuana and may not yet know they are
pregnant.

Medical marijuana laws and pregnancy: implications for public health policy.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27422056)

"Although there is much to learn yet about the effects of prenatal marijuana
use on pregnancy and child outcome, there is enough evidence to suggest _that
marijuana, contrary to popular perception, is not a harmless drug, especially
when used during pregnancy._ Consequently, the public health system has a
responsibility to educate physicians and the public about the impact of
marijuana on pregnancy and to discourage the use of medical marijuana by
pregnant women or women considering pregnancy." [emphasis added]

Long-term Marijuana Use and Cognitive Impairment in Middle Age
[http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849...](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484901)

Association Between Lifetime Marijuana Use and Cognitive Function in Middle
Age The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study
[http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=24849...](http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2484906)

Marijuana use leads to increased stillbirth: (free download)

Association between stillbirth and illicit drug use and smoking during
pregnancy
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24463671)

"CONCLUSION: Cannabis use, smoking, illicit drug use, and apparent exposure to
second-hand smoke, separately or in combination, during pregnancy were
associated with an increased risk of stillbirth. Because cannabis use may be
increasing with increased legalization, the relevance of these findings may
increase as well."

~~~
davidf18
Why are people allowed to downvote medical studies from highly regarded
journals? Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology?

What kind of human being would want increased babies neurologically deprived
from marijuana exposure or additional stillbirths?

Instead of downvoting, why don't you explain why you want these effects in
infants?

~~~
aianus
Replace Marijuana with Alcohol in that comment and it's all still true.

But Alcohol is not schedule 1.

~~~
davidf18
I don't follow. It is ok to downvote medical studies from leading medical
journals because alcohol already harms infants? And I suppose people reason
that marijuana use will not lead to any increase at all of neurologically
harmed infants?

Perhaps someone could explain why they want to adopt policy that will lead to
an increase of neurologically harmed infants and stillbirths.

Empathy is key. Try to imagine infants that have been harmed by marijuana use
by their mothers before their mothers knew they were pregnant. Not certain why
anyone would want to increase the number of neurologically harmed infants.

~~~
psyc
Utilitarian outcome is not the only basis for policy, especially in a society
that has individual liberty as a core value. If it was, we could have a much
more draconian society than we do. We don't ban things everywhere we find a
statistical increase in harm.

~~~
davidf18
Yet, we also make a distinction where people can harm themselves but we pass
laws that protect others from harms.

For example, be pass laws banning cigarette smoking in public places, in
parks, etc.

We also have a drinking age of 21, and many/most states now consider driving
with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 as drunk driving. These acts are to
protect other drivers and pedestrians from being harmed by drunk driving.

It is not unreasonable to want to ensure that fetuses are protected too.

------
fithisux
And start treating nicotine like heroin.

~~~
crazydude202
I believe cigarettes and other tobacco products should be unlawful.

If one wants to grow and dry their own tobacco to smoke, I am okay with that.

But, productizing addiction of known deleterious substances should be illegal.

~~~
icebraining
_But, productizing addiction of known deleterious substances should be
illegal._

Are you really willing to give up on sugar?

~~~
zeroer
In all honesty, I would if it meant not having to smell cigarette smokers'
smoke in public places.

And the obscene amount of refined sugar in our diets isn't doing us any
favors. A couple months sugar-free and everyone's palate would adapt.

------
kennell
More importantly: view drug use (and abuse) as a health issue, rather than a
criminal justice issue.

------
mercer
Without arguing for anything in particular I'd just like to add the following:

If you feel or suspect that marijuana negatively affects your life, and if you
want to quit (even temporarily), then I can strongly recommend visiting the
'leaves' subreddit (leaves.reddit.com).

In fact, even if you're just curious about how people compare living with and
without weed as part of their lives, it could be interesting to read a bunch
of the posts there.

It's a remarkably varied community; not everyone there sees weed as evil and
quitting as an necessity.

And for alcohol there's a similar subreddit called stopdrinking. It's
similarly open-minded.

Both have really helped me deal with (borderline) dependence.

------
viraptor
Do I understand it right? Even in states with legalised recreational use you
can't do research on cannabis without DEA approval?

~~~
tantalor
Recreational use and research are different things, so yes.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
They can be different but it's not a necessity - you _can_ do scientific
research for recreational purposes.

------
marmot777
People lose respect for government when it places weed in the schedule 1. It
clearly doesn't below there.

------
alvarosm
This is like lsd in the 60s... Hopefully in a couple of decades we'll realize
marijuana is shit.

------
caub
just don't smoke it

------
youngButEager
INSIGHT: Being in a position to observe the behavior of users -- MANY users --
over a period of time, and non-users in the same settings.

Most of you probably don't have that experience.

\- Parents do. Ask parents "how did your kid change after commencing use of
pot?"

\- Teachers do, if they know a student imbibes. These days teachers have a
great chance to see the difference between regular students and those who
smoke it.

\- Property managers of apartment properties do.

I'm the latter. I made my Silicon Valley startup bucks and have been buying
and operating apartment properties since 1993, 2 years out of college.

Here's what I experience:

1) my pot using tenants do not like following rules compared to other tenants.

2) they are defiant in their attitude to varying degrees, challenging things
they initially agree to ("no smoking", "new occupants must pass the same
tenant screening you did and must be added to the lease", "no guest parking",
"no loud parties/noise after 10pm", etc).

RECENT EXPERIENCES \- tenant moves in, it's a no smoking building, they begin
smoking pot in their unit EVEN THOUGH there are 'no smoking' signs everywhere
and the lease clearly calls for 'no smoking cigars/cigarettes/marijuana'.
THAT'S HAPPENED 18 TIMES (18 different tenants) IN THE PAST year and a half.

\- tenant moves in, gets a warning for their car blocking other tenants in the
parking lot, they kept blowing it off, parking and blocking others. FIVE TIMES
over a 2 month period until they were evicted.

\- tenant moves in someone without adding them to the lease (a requirement),
we catch them, the added person does not pass the normal tenant screening
process and they have to leave, the original tenant keeps them there anyway,
we catch them, gave them a final warning, they ignored the final warning, and
got evicted

Just a very small set of examples.

IF YOU SMOKE, you are the LAST person to know if your pot use has changed you,
added some negatives to your behavior. "A doctor who treats himself has a fool
for a patient."

I myself imbibed for 3 years as a teen. WHAT AN UNMITIGATED DISASTER. Normal
recreation time was clouded by intoxication.

If you prefer being intoxicated in your leisure time, how would you feel
telling people that?

"I like being intoxicated. It's my recreational activity."

OR

"I like being intoxicated during my leisure time."

OR

"When I spend free time with recreational pursuits, I like being intoxicated."

VERY FEW pot users will admit that to arbitrary others. Deep inside, we know
to ourselves "I shouldn't need intoxication to enjoy myself."

You should _not_ need to live in an altered state, intoxication, and if you
are frequently choosing intoxication from pot as 'recreation', something is
wrong.

~~~
superswordfish
How exactly do you know which of your tenants are using cannabis? Do you drug
test your tenants?

> You should not need to live in an altered state, intoxication, and if you
> are frequently choosing intoxication from pot as 'recreation', something is
> wrong.

Your comment is ironic evidence for insobriety. Anger, stress and frustration
are all palpable, and you may need some help to unwind. Hell, I could use a
beer after reading it.

~~~
youngButEager
Imagine showing vacant apartments to prospective renters since 1993 -- for 23
years. Lots of units, lots of prospective tenants.

In 1993 I had no pool of 'before move-in/after move-in' experience with
tenants. 23 years on, I have a large number of 'before move-in/after move-in'
tenant experiences.

So when a tenancy went bad, over time I started making a mental note of

1) the social cues the tenant made when I first met them

2) what their behavior was after move-in

I started seeing patterns. After 23 years of "before move-in/after move-in"
experiences, I developed predictors.

In my mind, I suspect that Judges, teachers, cops, hiring managers, any
profession where you have a lot of "before/after" experience with lots of
people -- have developed similar wisdom, similar predictors.

It's probably a survival skill humans have -- if you get burned over and over,
you start connecting "is there any way I could have used this person's _before
behavior_ to protect myself from their _after behavior_?"

Here are some of the screening-out cues I use:

1) during the initial showing of the unit and meeting, does the person forget
something I just told them ("It's a one year lease")? Did they exhibit more
than one memory lapse like that?

2) was the person inarticulate in writing (on the application), or in their
speech?

3) on the continuum of demeanor (behavior and body language) from "street
people behavior" to "my professional peers" \-- was the prospective tenant
closer to "street person" demeanor or closer to "professional peer"?

4) does the person smoke cigarettes? Over 23 years most of my pot-smoking
tenants smoked cigarettes. It makes sense I guess, smoking cigarettes for
nicotine, smoking pot for thc.

The list of 'cues' I have is not perfect; people are still moving in and
smoking pot inside my properties in violation of the lease.

~~~
thomyorkie
I understand that you've had some bad experiences with people who also happen
to smoke marijuana, but you are painting with much too broad a brush.

You must ask yourself: how accurate are you in your assessment of who smokes
marijuana and who doesn't? For some of your tenants, I'm sure it's obvious
that they partake. But, I'd wager many of your 'good' tenants do as well, and
you have no idea. It's really not hard to hide marijuana use from your
landlord. And from what it sounds like, the tenants who don't make any effort
to be discrete with their marijuana use are also the tenants who don't care if
their car is blocking another car. Perhaps a DGAF attitude would be a better
thing for you to screen for than marijuana use.

~~~
youngButEager
'DGAF' is not always evident in the short time we meet, interact with a new
tenant. Unlike a job interview process (several stages of contact: phone, in
person several times, etc.) it's not practical for landlords to spend that
much time with each prospective tenant.

The 18 tenants I've evicted in the past year and half -- they ALL slipped
'under the radar.'

My "cues/indicators" list above is 100% _NOT_ all inclusive.

Until you've dealt over many years with pot smokers, in _quantities_ , you
really, really have no idea how defiant/grouchy/uncooperative/troublemaking
they can be, behaviors you can only witness over a period of a lease.

Here's another example. 31 yo male, he should know better, right? About the
useless 'crutch' of drugs and alcohol as the foundation for personal
recreation?

Smoked up a storm. He befriended surrounding tenants, and so no one
complained. NOTE: in our non-smoking properties, keeping in mind that very few
people smoke these days and make an effort to only live in non-smoking
apartment properties, if a non-smoker is exposed to 2nd hand smoke, do they
complain to Management? Oh my god. Especially pot smoke. We get complaints
like "the person below me is smoking pot, you said this was a non-smoking
property, I don't want to get high from their 2nd hand smoke" \-- we get
COMPLAINTS. It's understandable, very few people smoke or want to be in close
breathing proximity to smokers these days.

Well, I had to catch him in the act, he chummed up with the surrounding
tenants "in range" and somehow got them to not complain. It wasn't easy.
Caught him over the course of 2 weeks on our security cameras.

We didn't tell him "Joe, we have video evidence you're smoking" we just served
the 3 Day Notice. He refused to stop. Went to eviction court, he lied to the
Judge. HE'S UNDER OATH. "Judge, I stopped smoking weeks ago." Lied to the
Judge while under threat of perjury. DEFIANT.

Then my attorney brought forth the photos and entered them in the record. The
Judge looked at Joe. I'm thinking 'it's perjury, is Joe going to jail?' The
Judge must have been in a good mood. He looked at my photo evidence for 20
seconds, BAM the gavel dropped, "judgment for the plaintiff."

Pot smokers are T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

It depends on how long they've been smoking. Those 3 years I smoked it as a
teen, it was in the final year I started with bad behavior, and bad
experiences I finally realized were not me.

So I don't really care how much a pot smoker says "it's fine, I'm fine, it's
harmless."

My philosophy with ANYONE who uses pot, and this is solely because of my 3
years personal experience and the screwed up behaviors from pot smokers over
23 years of landlording:

get away from me. Stay away from me. I don't care if you compromise your
personal life by thinking intoxication is a good foundation, just don't do it
around me.

That stuff is a disaster in many ways BECAUSE the damage is _so incremental_ ,
that the build of up negative consequences is invisible to the user.

I have _personally_ walked the path and I now also have 23 years of screwups,
pot smoking tenants causing weird problems no other (sober) tenant causes.

Let me say, I feel deeply sorry for anyone who leans on drugs and/or alcohol
for 'recreation.'

If you find yourself frequently intoxicated for 'recreation' \- from pot,
alcohol, whatever -- MOST people are going to have problems from it. You can
throw the dice with it over the long term if you want.

~~~
thomyorkie
> "Pot smokers are T-R-O-U-B-L-E"

There is an error in your reasoning process which has been pointed out several
times now (not just by me). I encourage a bit of introspection.

~~~
youngButEager
No. No error.

Pot smokers make bad decisions MUCH more frequently than sober non-users.

I am in a position to observe that -- lots of non-users and a few users, at
our properties

It doesn't matter if 100,000 non-experienced people tell me my opinion (based
on personal experience across 23+3 years) about pot smokers is wrong.

I actually have _THE EXPERIENCE._

But, as I've said, and as I tell prospective tenants, it is not for me to tell
you how to behave. My job, if you are a fan of repeated intoxication, is to
keep you out of my apartments. That's all I do.

And in the past year and a half, 18 people have slipped under the tenant
screening radar -- and got evicted for smoking on the premises.

We go to so much trouble to help people realize "hey, these people are really
serious about this 'no pot' rule, this place isn't for me"

18 people in a year and half. Despite the fact we TOLD them, UP FRONT, no pot
smoking (or cigars or cigarettes) on the premises. Before we even take a
deposit.

Think about that. 18 pre-warned-and-now-evicted pot smokers. THAT'S THE POT.
That's the bad decision making.

And you don't see or experience that. So I understand it's hard to grok, these
pot smokers.

~~~
thomyorkie
> "I am in a position to observe that -- lots of non-users and a few users, at
> our properties"

This is the crux of it. You simply cannot know for certain who the non-users
are. I guarantee you over the course of your 23 years, there were tenants who
you assumed fell into the non-users group but actually didn't.

