Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>and can't help feeling that exposing more people to that isn't a great thing.

So the solution is to throw them in jail?




For the record; no I don't believe that is a solution either.


It is, however, really the only alternative to legalization.

Decriminalization is stupid. Dispensary systems are stupid. Coffee shops are stupid.

Decriminalization is stupid because the implication is that cannabis is evil, and the only reason people want to smoke it is that they're addicted. This is false. The "push toward treatment" isn't helpful for anyone who isn't addicted and doesn't want to be treated, like me. Plus there's the implication that selling someone to someone who asks for it is somehow evil, which is even worse ("Selling is legal! Fucking is legal! Why isn't selling fucking legal?!").

Dispensary systems are stupid because dishonesty is baked (haha) into the system. The South Park episode Medicinal Fried Chicken is a decent explanation, but the short of it is that people fake illness to get weed. Granted, this is like people faking illness to get painkillers -- but since cannabis is significantly safer than opioids and benzodiazepines, doctors are significantly less likely to care. It's not an issue with physical consequences, since cannabis is extremely safe when used under medical supervision, just the fact that lying becomes so much more prevalent.

Coffee shops are lame because free markets work[1], so why don't we have one? They're not that bad, though -- the implementation of such a system would bump the legalization of cannabis way down my priority list.

What really gets me on this is that people conflate the question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis". Nobody conflates the legality of trampolines with the safety of trampolines. I find it incredibly disheartening when people I know -- smart people, in most respects -- respond to legalization with the idiotic knee-jerks "but it's dangerous!", "but my friend does nothing but smoke weed", ad absurdum. I know people who do nothing but play video games. I know at least one person who quit his job and left everyone he knew to become a paragliding instructor. He took a huge pay cut, too. And this latter example, I think, illustrates the biggest issue I have with arguments like yours:

Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life? If it's what they enjoy, they can go for it. Even if it is a bad decision -- you really can't outlaw bad decisions, because it's hard to say what is a bad decision. Thing is, the sort of "always-on" lifestyle, that sort where cannabis (also other distracting activities) is most likely to interfere, really isn't a good fit for some people. Some people burn out on weed, some burn out on other things.

Thing is, sometimes people just burn out. I think there are a lot of people who come into this argument from a pro-prohibition point of view because someone close to them changed after they started smoking marijuana. And I think that this is akin to blaming a spark for a bomb. The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker. It is possible, even likely, from my anecdotal experience, that he latched onto weed because he didn't like where he was in life. It doesn't really matter if you think he should have liked where he was in life.

There are plenty of harm reduction arguments for legalization, but I prefer the libertarian argument because, I think, it most directly refutes the central point of the popular anti-legalization arguments.

[1]: with a few exceptions.


Decriminalization is stupid because the implication is that cannabis is evil, and the only reason people want to smoke it is that they're addicted.

And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.

If your issue is that cannabis use is still looked on as evil (that's something of a strong word; I suspect only real puritans view it as evil :)) then possibly that is something we can address. However on the other hand I suspect the idea of cannabis being looked on as bad/evil/nasty would be unaffected by decriminalization/legalization - at least in the short term.

Speaking personally I'd like to get to a happy medium where you can have the choice of cannabis if you like, but it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became. I'd like to see a society were cannabis use didn't raise any eyebrows and was accepted as something people chose to do.

What really gets me on this is that people conflate the question "should cannabis be legal" with the question "should you smoke cannabis"

I've personally tried to be very specific when replying here regarding this issue. I'm open to discuss the former and as to the latter I have a personal opinion - which is that, on balance, I think smoking cannabis is probably bad for you.

Who the hell do you think you are that you can dictate what someone does with their life?

That made me a bit angry to be honest; because I don't make personal judgements like that! Definitely pro-choice here and I tend to get angry when people berate my friends for drug use (it's not their place! as you say).

Sure, if someone asks me the outright question: "Tom, should I smoke cannabis" I would say no (and then try to back it up, obviously). I'll maybe, maybe, try and raise the issue with a close friend if they seem to be struggling/having issues due to drug use, but that's it.

As you say these are 2 different issues and we should definitely address them seperately.

As a quick further comment: I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices. One of the worst life choices I nearly made was to do architecture rather than engineering - I'd have been a shit architect but it had been my passion from a very young age. A few close friends/family helped to show me it was a poor choice and for that I am forever thankful (I probably owe most of my current success to that single decision).

So, as long as your not forcing or overbearing on anyway it seems fair to lay out why they might be making a bad choice :)

Thing is, sometimes people just burn out. Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though. As I explained elsewhere a) we were extremely close during that period and b) it was less a proof that cannabis use was dangerous (I concede a single example is useless for that) as a rebuttal to someone else who suggested that cannabis could not have that affect.

The thing is, that your stock-broker friend may in fact have been unhappy as a stock broker. It's a really sad story. He came out of rehab at the end of last year and is currently working in the city and doing moderately well - but his concentration is shot and his spark/skill aren't what they were. It's sad but, yes, not proof that all cannabis use ruins lives.


> And yet decriminalization has proven tentatively successful when trialled.

It's more of a logical thing than a physical thing. If you can't justify throwing a cannabis user in jail, how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail? It's ludicrous! If you can't justify throwing someone in jail for smoking weed, how do you justify fining them $100?

It essentially encourages organized crime. You're feeding a black market that has no competition, for chrissake.

> I think it is absolutely fine to talk to people about their "bad" life choices.

Of course it is. I make no claim that you can't try to tell someone not to smoke weed, only that you oughtn't try to force someone not to smoke weed. And that's what prohibition is, and that's also what the goal of decriminalization is.

> it's not so readily available that it becomes the kind of widespread habit smoking became.

It doesn't matter! If 24% of the country wants to smoke weed, then 24% of the country can smoke weed! I think you'll find, though, that most people choose not to. This is another assumption that I think gets ignored: "if weed is legal, everyone will want to use it" -- well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. Most people don't want to use it. If that's your main concern, it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't matter if weed were sold in every gas station in the country: cannabis usage probably would never rise above 15% or so. It's already 11%, according to the WHO. A lot of people don't even like it, if you read bluelight. This is the third thing that bugs me: somewhere along the line cannabis became the best feeling ever. I like alcohol more than weed. I smoke (vaporize?) weed more than I drink because the negatives are less severe.

> Agreed, ny friend was not one of them though.

But that's what they all say! Everyone's friend was perfectly happy. People who burn out don't do nothing -- they while away their time playing video games, or masturbating (ya rly), and slowly neglect things that they may have once enjoyed. That said, I accept what you are saying.

It's true: some people do get addicted. But punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work. More to the point: punishing me because someone got addicted is being a dick. Punishing the guy who sells me weed is still being a dick. Punishing the guy who sold your friend weed is being a dick.

I'd like to make a potentially difficult claim: selling cannabis to a burnout is not necessarily wrong[1]. It is not entirely the responsibility of a seller to control the use of their product. The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit[2] is, in my experience, largely false, especially among the affluent and the well-educated. It happens, though I can't think of any particular instance. It can't happen under a system of legitimized commerce. It is frightening to see people use it as an argument against a system of legitimized commerce.

[1]: In a world where cannabis is legal, they would be responsible for adequately and accurately informing the user of the risks of cannabis, verifying the user's age, and possibly for providing information about treatment for cannabis addiction. All of these are good things. All of these can't happen under prohibition or decriminalization. In fact, the only way I can see to blame a drug dealer is if they claim that their product isn't addictive -- which doesn't happen, and can't happen, in the world of legitimate commerce.

[2]: The image of a dealer who gives out free first samples of extremely addictive things is a little more grounded in reality. Cannabis is not one of those things, in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.

EDIT: Slight, but significant, modification to last paragraph. I intended to clarify that the provision of cannabis is not a problem in and of itself -- there are of course unethical things that a dealer can do and may have done in your friend's case.

ps: Personal freedom is a hard argument to make, and it can be a bitter pill to swallow (Farnsworth: "now, if they could put it in the form of a suppository"). I think that's why tax revenue dominates the national stage. I don't like it, really. Instead of having to make a difficult -- but ultimately sensible -- decision, that might establish a serious, meaningful precedent, we are instead distracted by the prospect of more shiny things that we might get.


how do you justify throwing a cannabis seller in jail?

Ok.. think of it this way - we can, as society, judge cannabis use a poor choice. And thereby punish people who encourage that choice. But accept people who make the choice for themselves.

well, hell, if everyone wanted to use it, they would already. That seems illogical. I'm sure there are many people who are interested in trying it but who don't. :)

Anyway; I'm talking more about things like peer pressure. A large number of people develop a smoking habit from peer pressure at school. It's already a problem with weed as well - but I'd personally prefer not to see it become more widespread.

But that's what they all say! We can argue this all day; but the fact remains that in this case you just have to accept what I observed in my friend :)

The image of a predatory dealer who pushes cannabis on an addict who is trying to quit is, in my experience, largely false... ...especially among the affluent and the well-educated

The killer point is that last bit; affluent/well-educated people aren't the problem demographic. A lot of effort it put into pushing drugs onto inner city/poorer families. It is easier to hook them because of social issues.

This is the sort of problem I feel we need to address.

but punishing everyone because some people react badly doesn't work....

Please read back; as I have reiterated a number of times the example was used to disprove somebody else's assertion that cannabis could not destroy someones life. It's not specifically relevant to the pro/anti legalization debate.

It's not particularly nice to be called a dick.. you seem angry so I will leave it there because it's never a good basis for debate.

(as an aside in that I hope we can all agree that it is not extremely addictive.. This is one area of this that interests me deeply. It is becoming clear that cannabis is not physically addictive - but I have observed dependence in most people I know who smoke it. I'd love to see some better studies into why that is - is psychosomatic because they expect to be addicted, or just a product of habit?)


> It's not particularly nice to be called a dick..

I read a lot of excerpts from his post as him just ranting against a general 'you,' not you in particular. I wouldn't take it personally.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: