The war on drugs is not ending. Marijuana is the only thing people want to legalize. 80-90% want to keep everything else illegal. That is a problem. Legalized marijuana will surely cause cops to ease up on suburban white kids, but that'll remove the exigency from the injustice that continues to play out in other parts of the system.
"...cause cops to ease up on suburban white kids..."
Law enforcement eases up on suburban white kids in any case. Legalization will actually help the kids who are normally given more harsh punishments for possession. The fact that they will be given the most harsh punishment combined with the fact that marijuana is the drug of choice for the urban youth demographic is what leads to the disparities we see when we view amalgamations of the data.
> The fact that they will be given the most harsh punishment combined with the fact that marijuana is the drug of choice for the urban youth demographic is what leads to the disparities we see when we view amalgamations of the data.
Sadly, no - it will just change which drugs are used to vilify racial minorities and justify their incarceration.
I wish that weren't the case, but I've seen this pattern play out far too many times over the last century to think that it won't happen again.
FWIW: I used to work in drug policy reform, so while I won't pretend to know everything, I'm not just commenting as a casual observer, and I would love for history to prove me wrong this time.
EDIT: Since people seem to disagree, let's look at the history that brought us the initial criminalization of marijuana in the first place (profit-driven motives, capitalizing on xenophobia of Mexican immigrants), the criminalization of the opium trade (ditto, but for Chinese immigrants[0]), the criminalization of crack cocaine over powder cocaine (race-driven hysteria over the form of the drug perceived to be more "black"[1]), and so on, and so forth.
Or, if you want to extend this argument further, let's look at the pharmaceutical cycle. Not everyone knows this, but heroin was originally a trademark name for a drug. Furthermore, the reason that heroin was originally produced was in response to the use of morphine by (and I quote) "ruffians". Heroin was actually originally intended to be the less-addictive alternative. Take a look at who the so-called "ruffians" were, and you'll see this cycle continue all over again.
[0] we're talking just about the US, but you can extend this to former colonies as well if you want
[1] Look at the propaganda about crack that was coterminous with a peak in (powder) cocaine usage among the wealthy white demographics, and it becomes pretty clear.
To some extent true, but given the percentage of minorities who use (or possess) marijuana but no other illegal drugs (or at least rarely use/possess), this should still be a major step in the right direction.
I have no idea what this percentage is, but I'm guessing it's a sizable portion of the marijuana users.
Optimistic - people in mainstream society realise cannabis is not destroying society and slowly come to appreciate that alcohol is not the only drug, and that drugs (and drug users) aren't the devil. The edifice comes tumbling down and we start looking at drug policy (and our massive drug-related budget) in terms of harm reduction.
Pessimistic - the largest group of drug users is brought into the fold of the mainstream. The idea of 'hard' and 'soft' drugs is reinforced and users of anything other than cannabis and alcohol are pushed even further into the category of 'other'. Drug-war resources used against cannabis are diverted into continuing to make everything worse for everyone when it comes to all other drugs. Central and South America and West Africa continue to get torn apart by cartels feeding off Europe and North America's insatiable appetite for cocaine. Other parts of the world that have the raw materials for other drugs (sassafras, poppies) go the same way (if they haven't already). NPS with unknown health profiles continue to be churned out and consumed by the kiloton.
Unfortunately I think the pessimists probably have the right of this one for the next several years at least.
I'm an optimist. The success of cannabis gives a playbook for successful liberalization: find good medical uses, push hard to allow more research, show that society can handle prescription access, educate, legalize. This is already starting with MDMA and psychedelics.
In some ways, it's funny that in our hyper-medicated age, that a stimulant and a heavy painkiller are still unspeakably taboo. I mean, every graduate school and Ivy League college in our country is awash with powerful stimulants (Adderall). It wouldn't surprise me if a properly controlled/dosed drug with coca extract in it could be more effective than amphetamines for attention issues. I never want to touch heroin, but with the abuse of prescription painkillers, criminalizing usage of one drug (and thus funding criminal networks) seems like a worse and worse strategy.
It's a meaningless anecdote, but a recent newsworthy drug bust around here was a prescription pill ring (Buprenorphine/Suboxone). So there is also criminal distribution of prescription painkillers.
third way: Mainstream users largely move away from consuming illegal drugs into abusing prescription drugs. The drug marketplace becomes a confusing grey market of legitimate, semi-legitimate and completely illegitimate usage of the same substances.
> The drug marketplace becomes a confusing grey market of legitimate, semi-legitimate and completely illegitimate usage of the same substances.
Largely like today, then. E.g. the largest gateway to heroin use is prescription opioids (which are far more expensive to buy on the black market than it is to buy equivalent doses of heroin from your friendly neighbourhood dealer; and in some countries heroin too is provided on prescription - e.g. in the UK, in addition to occasionally being made available to addicts, it is used as legitimate pain relief for post operative pain though I believe only for inpatient use)
But Marijuana is a gateway-drug. ;)
So perhaps legalizing it and letting that situation become the new normal will open the door to people taking another look at the rest of drugs and how to properly deal with the problems they can cause.
I am not sure why people think it is perfectly fine, there are serious mental health risks associated with it. I am probably the only person on HN who thinks that legalization is a bad thing - I used to smoke a lot and strong marijuana definitely caused me issues and I really wouldn't recommend anyone else abuse it to the levels that I did.
You had a bad reaction to some substance and so you want to make it illegal for anyone else to consume it, even if most people don't have a bad reaction to it and can moderate? And throw them in jail to rot if they don't comply?
I can't understand this attitude. I had some problems because of alcohol and now abstain (and have for 10 years), but I'm not in favor of re-enacting prohibition. I'm totally fine with people drinking, it's just not a good idea for me. (btw, I don't use marijuana, either)
ok, I suppose what I am against is the commerialization of it - cigarrettes have made corporations like BAT significant amounts of money and killed significant amounts of people - investing in products that seek to sell them will produce companies whose aim is to sell them / create profit - that is bad when the products they are selling have harmful side effects.
Make it legal / Ensure people know the risks / Do not create corporate entities who have taken investment and have a responsibility to shareholders to make money as that is bad.
I would recommend against abusing any drug, legal or illegal. It's not a good idea to abuse alcohol, caffeine, nicotine or pseudoephedrine, all of which are quite legal. Aspirin abuse can cause intestinal bleeding, acetaminophen abuse can cause liver failure, ibuprofen abuse can cause hypertension, and so on. The question is we have to ask is: does criminalization of a drug do more good than harm? In the case of marijuana, it's abundantly clear that criminalization has caused vastly more harm than the drug itself.
A family member was badly harmed by marijuana abuse. I still support legalization.
I don't think smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco are good things, but I'd still rather have them be legal, warn others of the risk, and treat those that are harmed.
Growing or selling cannabis is illegal in Portugal. Owning cannabis seeds is illegal in Portugal. The only thing that was changed is that the consumer of cannabis is no longer treated as a criminal. I've yet to see a good argument why the same approach wouldn't work in the US.
> The only thing that was changed is that the consumer of cannabis is no longer treated as a criminal.
Right, which is why I say it's going in the right direction. I think full legalization will provide the most benefits to society, but decriminalization of use is a good start.
To be honest, it's a bit more complex, and as with all substance abuse, there are underlying causes.
But the short story is he developed schizophrenia. We're not sure if cannabis was a cause or a trigger or what, but he was a heavy smoker, and he had a history of theft, etc. linked to cannabis (much as he would have if he abused alcohol or other substances. But the schizophrenia angle was stressed by the mental health professionals that took care of him).
I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodies.
The war on drugs has caused more harm than the drugs would have themselves. Countless lives lost and trillions of dollars wasted. For what? More people than ever use the substances. The 'war' has kept the cartels in business, inflated their prices and degraded the quality of the product. The war on drugs hasn't progressed anything, only destroyed.
> I don't smoke or drink, but I believe in complete legalisation. Individuals, as long as they're not hurting anyone, should decide what to do with their own bodies.
I'm curious: do you believe in a social safety net? Do you believe society has an obligation to ensure that everyone has their basic needs met?
If so, how do you reconcile that belief with the idea that individuals have no reciprocal obligation to society to abstain from using products that are harmful, and which cause addictions that hurt not only the individual users, but their families and loved ones?
You didn't ask me, but I dont believe society has an obligation, I think it should do it because at a basic level, the outcomes are better for society as a whole.
I think individuals absolutely have an obligation to society (different, but similar to a family obligation), and just like if you have a family member who is off their rocker, the outcomes are generally better for everyone if we take care of the problem early and try and fix the root cause so they can get healthy again.
I sort of think of it as a bad analogy for the iterated snowdrift[0] where we can simply sit there and complain that the other person isn't doing their part, or we can continue to shovel and get the benefit ourselves. Best case we can induce them to help us with the shoveling, worst case the snow is cleared.
If some one ends up abusing drugs to the extent that they have to rely on the social safety net, let them. No one wants to be poor, no one wants to live in the conditions imposed by the safety net.
As long as the existence of a safety net doesn't encourage people to use drugs (people who start using drugs like opiates are rarely thinking of the future at the time they start) then the two aren't really related issues.
I'm not talking about people who abuse drugs badly enough to need the social safety net. Rather, I'm positing that the social safety net arises out of society's obligation to take care of individuals, and that individuals have a reciprocal obligation to society.
To me, that reciprocal obligation is inconsistent with the premise that "should decide what to do with their own bodies." If drug use compromises your ability to be a productive member of society that can support and take care of family and neighbors, then it implicates your social obligation, and society has a right to tell you that you can't do it.
Of course, the fact that society has a right to make drugs illegal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
That's easy. Less harm comes from addiction than from the Drug War. Narcs are much worse, functionally, budgetarily, etc., than addicts. So if YOU believe in a social safety net, we ought to be punishing the Drug Warriors first.
Too much of a lot of things is going to cause most of us problems. Alcohol, for example?
In moderation, it's an entirely different scenario.
With use out in the open, we can do education just like we do for other things people use out in the open. Given that scenario, perhaps you would have used differently.
I had a similar experience long ago. I used a little, liked it, then used a lot. Not good. While I am not sure I actually suffered any harm, I did see changes in what I do and how I do it. One nice thing about cannabis is a very large number of people are able to just walk away from it.
Which is precisely what I did. Literally no issues. I can't say that for other things, or I can't say that as easily. The trigger was a new career dangling out there, and if I was going to go for it, I needed to prioritize and just did.
Since then, some recreational uses are just fine. Very enjoyable, and being in Oregon, quite legal very soon.
For some time, I've been involved in the medical program helping some people close to me with various formulations and extractions. The differences are amazing, and in a few cases, not really addressed with the body of accepted treatments out there now. I see people living fairly well now, who really didn't before. That's worth some research to optimize.
Normalizing recreational uses seems a net gain good to me personally. I suspect some people will fall into bad patterns of use and may be impacted, but we can help them. A whole lot of other people will benefit by not having to make harsh choices to enjoy their lives in ways they find worth enjoying.
Ahh, so you admit you abused it. Just like someone can abuse alcohol. Or prescription drugs. Or countless other things.
I can kill myself by overindulging in water, but that doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Maybe education and some common sense and people can enjoy the thing they like without causing permanent damage.
Presumably you were abusing it despite the fact it is criminalised. And numbers from Portugal shows no massive rise in use after decriminalisation. Even assuming your claims are right about the damage potential (which is far from obvious), it does not present a good reason for the current method of dealing with it, which in addition to clearly not preventing abuse causes substantial criminal involvement.
The difference between decriminalization and legalizing trade is significant. In Portugal drug traffickers need to spend energy just to avoid getting caught. A legal cannabis industry on the other hand will have free reign to spend vast resources on lobbying, marketing and making their product as addictive as possible, which may lead to a significant increase of use.
I thought that white suburban kids were already pretty much immune against actions for small amounts of marijuana possession. The whole war on drugs was always thinly veiled as pretext for oppression of blacks/hispanics/poor.
Since cannabis is well known to be mostly harmless, and much more harmless than alcohol, it seems like a good start. LSD might be in this category too. There are other ones that have value in medical, psychiatric and therapeutic settings, and definitely should not be completely banned simply because of their potential to cause harm. Another class offers zero benefit or unreasonably small benefit for the risks. "Bath salts" anyone?
We have more socialism in the USA than many people realize and as long as I am paying taxes I'd prefer to not have to pay for unnecessary tragedies, second only to my wish to not fund the military and spies. We have to pay for quite a bit of emergency room care, social security death benefit, mental health or domestic violence counseling, etc. already due to the abuse of alcohol.
>Legalized marijuana will surely cause cops to ease up on suburban white kids
Pot is hugely prevalent in the black community. This is what I hate about the uber-politically correct attitudes popular here. If we weren't discussing legal pot, we would be discussing how illegal pot is ruining the black community. Now that we're legalizing pot, we can't just pretend this isn't a win for them. Hell, its a net win for every socio-economic group in my opinion.
Not to mention suburban white kids weren't getting shit from the cops to begin with. They were getting breaks or their parents' wealth and influence kept them out of trouble if they did actually run afoul of the law.
> 80-90% want to keep everything else illegal. That is a problem.
No its not. Strongly physically addictive drugs cause social harm. We're not legalizing heroin or cocaine or meth. The number of people who consider those drugs harmless that need to be made legal immediately are a tiny extremist minority with zero political power. That's the system working the same way its working now to make pot legal because attitudes have changed greatly in the past few decades.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out with things like MDMA and psychedlics, but we need to make baby steps first with pot. Pretending legal pot is bad policy just because you can't buy a gallon of liquid acid at Walmart is asinine. I think so many internet commentors have internalized negativity for things like upvotes and attention that they literally cannot applaud a good thing when its happening. Its sad to see all these sour attitudes here at HN and reddit. The realistic alternative here isn't some paradise of legal everything; its more drug war nonsense. This is our first step to stop the drug war. It should be applauded as such.
To test whether the war on drugs has ended, try starting a cottage industry around cocaine production. Doh!
All that is happening, essentially, is that marijuana is being reclassified as a new form of alcohol. That makes it okay with conservatives, who are okay with alcohol, by and large.
So, nothing is really changing.
The WOD will end when you can legally get any substance you want. Including any legitimate pharmaceutical, without a damned prescription.
From my European perspective, the equation looks simple:
In the U.S., money talks. And it's loud. If the figures showing up from the states of Washington and Colorado (there are others) are good and they mean people are making boatloads of cash with that crop, legalization will spread like wildfire. It is one of the good aspects of a more deregulated market after all.
> From my European perspective, the equation looks simple: In the U.S., money talks.
This is true literally everywhere in the world. Some places may be more up front about it and others may try to hide it more, but in the end, everyone is subject to the same constraints of economics.
It is indeed true of pretty much everywhere in the world. But the people in the United States have, in my opinion and understanding of the world, a more natural tendency towards cold mercantilism where the personal feelings don't take precedence over good business models and potential financial gain. It is a trait that I believe is true of many protestant-based, trading-infused societies (like the UK, the Netherlands and others).
That should have read: "Money talks everywhere, but even more so in the U.S".
Americans care a lot more about ideals (though often ones that are in retrospect misguided) than money.
For example, in the decades preceding Prohibition, 30-40% of the federal government's income came from excise taxes on alcohol: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-taxes-enabled-alcohol-proh.... Prohibition overnight eliminated that revenue. The government gave up a lot of money to indulge moralistic fervor.
Funny, it's practically an old hippy canard that there wouldn't be much money to be made if it were legal. I'm sure that there's money to be made somewhere, but this is a pretty easy plant to grow/cultivate if it's ever legal to have a few plants in your backyard - far easier than brewing your own beer.
My guess is that the money will go into building a few solid brands. I wouldn't be surprised if edibles were the focus here, too - they're much easier to make at scale than by individuals, a lot of people probably prefer eating to smoking, and they provide a lot of opportunity for brand differentiation.
I've never used cannabis, and I certainly couldn't be bothered to grow it even if it was legal. Nor would I be interested in smoking. But I might try it in edible form if only just to have experienced it.
(And this is not down to lack of access - despite never having tried cannabis, I'd have no problem getting hold of some today if I suddenly decided I had to try it, which shows just how much of a total failure criminalisation of it has been)
I definitively agree with you. There'll be plenty of people who'll want to grow their own, but also plenty of people like me or somewhat more interested, that'd be interesting in trying or indulging in it now and again, but who's not interested in tending for a plant (just like I'm not growing my own vegetables...), not interested in smoking, and not interested enough to pay attention to how to find a good quality product, who'd prefer to be able to just recognise a large brand that'd be a sign of sufficient quality and trust.
For that kind of market segment price matters less than recognition - I'd happily pay a "not having to spend time researching what to look for on the internet" premium of 100% or more if I at some point decide to try, the same way I drink alcohol so rarely that when/if I do I stick to a handful of well known brands that I'm comfortable with.
This keeps getting brought up, and I'm not really saying there's not a good business here, but the economics are vastly different. A tomato plant might save you $3 and provide you with a meal or two. If states aim to keep prices near current street prices, a good harvest from a few plants could provide north of $500 worth of value for a minimal outlay of money (quite possibly nothing) and little work.
True. I just suspect that it's closer in terms of technical complexity to growing tomatoes or selling tomato sauce than it is to making beer. And, yeah, I'm sure a lot of investors will jump at the chance to invest in the "Prego" or "Classico" or even "GardenFresh" of pot. But I also suspect that if tomato sauce was $100 a jar, there would be a much more robust community of homegrowers. I just find the economics/incentives fun to think about.
I'd think rather then edibles it'd be hash. Hash can be quantified much easier then the plant, and if it were legal I can see disposable hash ecigs becoming a trend. Plus it's easier to just extract from entire plants and filter then it is to trim and cultivate good looking plants.
It would not surprise me if many large agri-tech companies had plans for if/when it becomes fully legal from production to consumption in more places.
However I have definitely heard lots of conspiracy-theory type stuff coming from the more crunchy end of the pro-pot spectrum. Some of them even actively resist legalisation because they don't want 'corporations' involved in the trade.
Personally, I think the greater virtue is getting rid of our terrible laws and war on drugs, we can sort out marketplace ethics later.
It amazes me that some people prefer the DEA and for-profit prisons to corporations. At least Monsanto doesn't show up in your home unannounced in the middle of the night and shoot your dog.
There is only one lab in the US with a federal license to grow marijuana. It isn't Monsanto. So I doubt Monsanto has a stock of superior seeds, just ready to take over the market.
I'm sure every agg company + tobacco have plans for when/if marijuana becomes legal on the federal level. It is simply good business sense to be ready.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the US has been going the way of BNW for a long time. This whole time we've been scared of 1984 being imposed on us that we've let BNW naturally creep in.
