
The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization - ingve
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-marijuana-legalization.html
======
sharkweek
Two plugs I always make during any drug law discussion on HN:

One - The Economist's 2009 article "Failed states and failed policies" \-
[http://www.economist.com/node/13237193](http://www.economist.com/node/13237193)
(you might have to Google the title to get around a paywall)

Two - The documentary, The House I Live In -
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/)
(trailer -
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8))

Both make such a fascinating case that drugs should have never been a crime
and punishment issue, but rather one of public health. I highly recommend both
for a read and a watch, and both will articulate the case far superior to
anything I would be able to write here.

~~~
javert
> a crime and punishment issue, but rather one of public health

Not disagreeing with anything you said, just providing a thought.

Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health;
thus, in common opinion, public health _is_ an issue of crime and punishment.

If you take it as a principle (as I do) that we need sepration of state and
public health (as with church, as with education), it has interesting
implications.

Update: Most glaring example is Obamacare. You have to pay a fine (punishment)
if you don't get insurance and it imposes massive burdens on doctors. I am
only adding this because I got massively downvoted. I guess people didn't
understand that what I said was just a matter of fact. Our society _does_
support the idea that public health is actionable on a "crime and punishment"
level and in general that is still the modus operandi.

~~~
GuiA
> in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment.

Mh? It isn't illegal to get an STD, and you don't get punished for having an
STD; yet our society actively tries to limit STD transmission. Not sure I'm
understanding what you're arguing for/against.

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread
disease.

~~~
tekromancr
No, mate. It's illegal because bible. Those are justifications. For example,
you are far less likely to transmitted diseases by sucking cock, but under
sodomy laws, it's a crime.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Sure, it's illegal because Bible, but my take is, it's wrong in the Bible for
rational reasons. The only thing is, they were rational for the time and place
they were created in. Many of the rules various religions teach seem
nonsensical, backward and barbaric to us today, but if you look at them
through the lens of the context in which they were written, there's often a
kernel of reason in them.

Case in point, sodomy and fornication may have been considered wrong because
they spread of diseases. Many of the diseases we can treat easily today were
probably debilitating and fatal back then, and they imposed a cost that
society then could not bear.

Another example, adultery: most of the animal kingdom has no concept of
marriage, but a desperately poor society may not be able to tolerate any bad
blood brewed by adultery. When your primary resources are the productive youth
of your society, you'd prefer them to be united in their toils (be it farming
hunting of wars) rather than killing each other over petty jealousies.

Some parts of Islam seem overly brutal to us, but (AFAIK) it was forged in a
society that mostly lived an unbelievably harsh tribal life in the desert.
Consider theft in that context. Even a minor theft could cause somebody to
lose their life, and hence thievery in general was deterred with very harsh
punishment.

Sure, some rules were made purely for the benefit of a select few, but that
doesn't affect the point that many others were reasonable for their time.

The problem with religion is that people still assume these rules as God's
(with a capital 'G') own truth when they no longer make any sense in the
modern day.

~~~
tammer
The "ancient public health initiative" explanation of religious taboos is a
specious argument.

Yes, there are arguments to prove eating pork in the biblical middle-east was
more dangerous than eating other kinds of meat. But to say that some wise and
beneficent scholars recognized this fact implies there were prototype
longitudinal surveys coupled with an ancient germ-theory of disease. It also
doesn't explain the dozens of other prohibitions that have no relation to
public health.

I suggest the book _Purity and Danger_ [1] by Mary Douglas. She's a structural
anthropologist who posits these religious taboos as extensions of the
symbology dominant at the time.

[1]: [http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-
Routl...](http://www.amazon.com/Purity-Danger-Analysis-Pollution-
Routledge/dp/0415289955)

------
k-mcgrady
I sincerely believe the only people who are against legalisation of marijuana
are those who don't understand it's effects on a person and those who are
easily susceptible to propaganda and fail to do their own research on the
subject. I can't think of even one legitimate reason for it's prohibition. If
you argue for prohibition based on health consequences or risk to society you
should also be arguing for prohibition of alcohol and it has been proven
beyond doubt that alcohol prohibition was a really bad idea.

~~~
fred_durst
I'll bring up a point here only because I feel like the HN crowd is on the
younger side. Its not until your late 20's and really 30's that you start to
find out about and see people you've known in the past that were intelligent,
productive people who's lives have been completely destroyed due to their drug
addictions. And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold
down a job and live off friends and family because they were/are addicted to
marijuana. It definitely happens, don't kid yourself.

I don't know if the correct solution is to criminalize it, but please keep in
mind that drugs change who you are. That is truly the unique thing about them
compared to other addictions. And again, if you think heavy marijuana use
doesn't change a person, you don't know any heavy marijuana users.

For example, banning alcohol and marijuana probably isn't going to work, but
selling bottles of cheap vodka at the grocery store 24/7 is setting up a lot
of people who are trying to get clean to fail.

~~~
indlebe
>And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job
and live off friends and family because they are addicted to marijuana.

Is the evidence available strong enough to suggest that it's the marijuana
causing this? Marijuana is often used by those suffering from depression and
anxiety as a form of self-medication.

In BC, Canada the province's leading medical doctors have come out in strong
support of legalization.

~~~
seanflyon
Supporting legalization is quite different from supporting usage.

~~~
indlebe
Agreed

------
resdirector
This is a step in the right direction. I strongly believe that marijuana
legalization is good for the economy -- personally I've come up with
brilliant, practical ideas while stoned[0]. Many of which I have gone on to
implement and generate wealth. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Think Steve Jobs
and Apple etc.

[0] I hope the nomenclature evolves re marijuana. "stoned", "bong", "skunk",
"chronic", etc conjure up images that are too tightly aligned with negative
stereotypes IMO.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
We have plenty of negative names for alcohol and tobacco, though. Booze, fags,
etc.

------
benmarks
Not a user, but after being a bartender for years - and knowing many who do
consume marijuana - there seems to be no logical reason to punish (let alone
_incarcerate_) people for something which is ultimately less destructive than
what I was allowed to push for so many years.

~~~
drumdance
Yeah, alcohol is far more likely to result in police incidents. Here in
Boulder I often think that if all the drunk college students were getting high
instead, the worst thing that would happen is all the restaurants will get
overrun at 2 am.

------
krschultz
So the real question now becomes - which organizations with political clout
are still fighting to keep Marijuana _illegal_?

I've actually never smoked weed in my entire life (seriously). I have no
interest in smoking weed once it is legal either. But I'm very sick of paying
to support a stupid wasteful policy. So who are the people that are actually
fighting to keep it illegal? I honestly can't find them, I'd love to read
their arguments.

~~~
spenvo
Relevant:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/police-unions-and-
pharmaceuti...](http://www.businessinsider.com/police-unions-and-
pharmaceutical-companies-fund-anti-marijuana-fight-2014-7)

[https://mayday.us/](https://mayday.us/)

~~~
steanne
... and a few more mentioned here:

[http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-
illegal/](http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marijuana-lobby-illegal/)

------
icebraining
To the Americans around here: do you think this will have any important
effects? It seems to me it could have, if it had been done ten years ago, our
if the NYT was a newspaper aligned with a more conservative line, but nowadays
I'd expect most readers of the Times to think "took you long enough!"

~~~
eli
I think this is a big deal. The New York Times is hardly universally
respected, but it has a lot more credibility than the image normally
associated with the marijuana legalization crowd. I would expect Sunday
morning news programs to mention this editorial tomorrow.

~~~
mturmon
Yep, this has the potential to become one of those phase-change situations
where there is movement from "it will never happen because it's always been
this way" and "why is this still broken?" Like gay marriage.

In these kinds of issues, the NYT is typically a lagging indicator, so it's
nice to see them leading for a change.

~~~
ScottBurson
Yeah, take a look at the trend in the graph in one of their other columns [0].
The balance of opinion is changing very fast.

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-
time-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/opinion/sunday/high-time-the-
public-lightens-up-about-weed.html?opinion-series)

------
pessimizer
General legalization and amnesty is the way to go. This piecemeal recreational
legalization is only happening in the whitest states in the country, and not
helping the primary victims of the drug war.

~~~
eli
Keep your eye on DC. It is neither the "whitest" nor even a "state" but it
does have a full legalization ballot initiative set for November that will
almost certainly pass if Congress doesn't block it.

~~~
pessimizer
It's now on my radar. Thanks.

------
bkeroack
I can't use marijuana because it would have incredibly bad effects on my life,
but I support legalization.

I tend to be bored easily. Normally boredom inspires me to get out of the
house, do something productive, write some code, etc. Marijuana is a boredom
cure. After using it, I could stare at a wall for five hours and be deeply
fascinated and content. I cannot afford to waste time staring at walls. I need
to be productive. Therefore marijuana is a bad idea for me, but I don't
believe the state should make that decision for everybody.

------
coreymgilmore
Full legalization has a single major hurdle for me: testing for a person's
level of "high". Think of this as a blood alcohol content breathalyzer test.
There is a definite method for determining the amount of alcohol inside a
person's body and laws use these limits for punishment.

This is highly important. No body wants someone "high as a kite" operating a
vehicle. It is not in the public's best interest to have very high people
driving just like having severely drunk people driving. Its all about safety.

You could frame the argument that marijuana is similar to other medicines (OTC
or prescription, labeled with "do not drive or operate machinery") but the
attempts to legalize marijuana for all uses - recreational - negates this
point. If people can use marijuana at all times, any time, than a method of
ensuring a using person is not endangering others is needed.

To sum, legalization requires a definitive method to measure "highness" to
ensure safety for the public. Once this occurs and people know the rules and
levels at which they can be high, then legalizing makes sense.

~~~
megaman821
Why do you need to test a person's high? I don't care if a person has had too
much to drink, too much to smoke, or taken to many prescription pills, if they
are driving poorly under the influence of drugs, they should get a DUI. Having
a test just makes the prosecutor's job easier, but the officer could always
arrest the people he suspects are too high to drive and get a warrant for a
blood draw.

------
tdicola
Neat animation effect as your scroll down the page. Is it using SVG to animate
the morph from star to cannabis leaf?

~~~
taternuts
Yeah - Mike Bostock of the d3 fame works for the NYT and was almost certainly
behind that

------
bobbyi_settv
From the end of Part 1 of the editorial series:

> On Monday at 4:20 p.m. Eastern Time, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page
> editor, will be taking questions about marijuana legalization at
> facebook.com/nytimes.

~~~
mturmon
At 4:20? Holy crap, I thought the NYT was way too stuffy to do such a stunt.
I've been a reader for many years, and the only things I can count on in life
are life, death, and the sleepy character of the NYT editorial page. I think
I'd better pay closer attention.

------
TheSoftwareGuy
Kind of off topic, but can we talk about how beautiful of a webpage that is?

~~~
DangerousPie
Ironically this comment is probably the only "on-topic" comment in this entire
thread, considering that this is HN. :)

~~~
probably_wrong
If you feel a post is not HN material, you can always flag it. It's in the
guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
drewblaisdell
I'm truly curious: which problems related to marijuana use (intoxicated
drivers, access by children, etc.) do people think might worsen in a state
where marijuana is legalized?

It seems obvious to me that marijuana legalization would alleviate the two
aforementioned issues by raising awareness of marijuana-related DUIs and
eliminating distribution networks that sell to children, but I probably
haven't considered other problems associated with widespread marijuana use.

------
clarky07
I was really glad to see states starting to do something about this, but this
should really be changed at the federal level. It's less bad for you than
alcohol and cigarettes. The war on it is just so costly and absurd on so many
levels.

------
bbarn
I'm pretty neutral on marijuana legalization. If anything, I'm for it as I
feel like it's a bit of a red herring for the media to discuss and ignore
other, more important, issues.

That said, NYT, the morphing graphic of the stars in the US flag turning into
pot leafs? That's just tasteless. Let's not go from illegal to "symbolizing
our country" in one op-ed, eh?

~~~
bellerocky
> That said, NYT, the morphing graphic of the stars in the US flag turning
> into pot leafs?

I hadn't even noticed that, way to shoot their cause in the foot. What a
silly, and disrespectful graphic. It doesn't even use the right values for
blue and red before the morph. Granted, I take our flag pretty seriously, and
personally can't stand it when people wear it as shirts or have some
bastardization of it plastered on their mug.

------
xiaoma
Even decades ago, people as influential as Milton Friedman were arguing this
and explaining the costs at length:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY&feature=youtu.be&t=4m37s)

------
mhb
Is there any explanation why the editorial board of the Times is writing this
now, after many decades of harm have already been done? Has something changed
or do they just feel as if the bandwagon is big enough that it is OK for them
to climb aboard?

------
bavcyc
And so does the National Review:
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379018/let-states-
deci...](http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379018/let-states-decide-pot-
dana-rohrabacher)

~~~
eli
That's an Op-Ed, not necessarily the position of the National Review's
editors.

The NYT isn't just running a series of articles on legalization, they are
taking a stand as a newspaper in favor of it.

~~~
slurry
I thought NR was for legalization from way back? Quietly anyway. Definitely
Bill Buckley personally was pro-legalization from at least the 70s onward.

Edit: and the piece is by a sitting Republican congressman, who is a somewhat
legendary figure in movement conservative circles.

------
nether
And in a decade or two, legalization of prostitution.

~~~
satori99
It was legalized where I live years ago. Sex Workers pay income tax, and can
make work related deductions. They can call the police if they have any
trouble with clients. It is just another service industry.

The only restrictions imposed apon them is where they are allowed to operate
their business. (Not near schools, playgrounds etc).

------
stevekemp
Nice XSS attack against the comment-page there. Oops.

------
andyl
I've lost many friends and family to drugs and alcohol. Tremendous loss. Most
can use with no consequences, but not everyone. I believe legalization will
result in more casualties.

~~~
austerity
Well, all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. So by resisting the
change you are helping inflict damage on more lives.

------
cnst
> we advocate the prohibition of sales to people under 21.

What a fucking racists! The article started so well.

