9 ms·

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.

by pstuart 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago
I was tempted to give one, but I don't think this is a good forum for discussing such a boring political issue. Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.
- fjabre 16y ago
  Why? Flag the posting then. It's certainly relevant to the article.
- blhack 16y ago
  >Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere. Please don't take this the wrong way, but your account is 49 days old...I'm not sure that you're at the "I get to tell people what sorts of discussions they're allowed to have" stage yet, especially not to people that have been here for almost three years.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Would it be okay if I had been around for 1021 days like this guy? http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hugh http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hugh
    - blhack 16y ago
      Honestly? Not really. It's an open forum, I don't think it's really ever good form to tell somebody "hey, you're not supposed to talk about that here." (unless it's spam, in which case, just downvote. Saying "don't talk about that" is off-topic and has been specifically addressed by PG in the past.) I'm sorry I didn't know that you had an alt account, it's just annoying when people start showing up and trying to dictate how things "should be" to established members of an existing community.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  I'm new(ish) here, but I don't see why not. HN tends to have a much better atmosphere for serious discussion than most web forums I've seen. I'd be happy to hear both sides of this argument here, and hopefully to see more reasonable debate than what is usually presented.
  - davidw 16y ago
    It has a pleasant atmosphere in part because it mostly avoids inflammatory topics like politics. I'd much rather talk startups and business, and maybe living abroad with patio11, for instance, than discuss why he's a Republican and I'm not. The former is bound to be a useful, interesting discussion; the latter most likely not. Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on an internet fourm.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
aptimpropriety 16y ago
Try this thread from a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=554166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=554166 which links to this article: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... Perhaps not an argument against, but certainly a 'reality' check argument against the "it's so obvious we should do it" mentality that seems to thrive in online forums.
- Retric 16y ago
  Work is hard, let's go shopping. Is a poor argument. The real issue is the total difficulty of all issues not simply the number of them. EX: A "major" issue is it's hard to detect if someone is currently under the effects of pot. Because, apparently drug test are designed to detect if you have smoked not if you are currently impaired. However, an officer can do a road side sobriety test without using a breatilizer so it's not a real issue. Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
  - moe 16y ago
    Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own. I don't see a problem. Pot use can be detected, sometimes days (or weeks) after. The law in most of europe is simple: If you're tested positive while driving then your license is gone. Seems fair enough.
    - Retric 16y ago
      My point is if you get high and are only impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours if you are not impared you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people. The bioaccumulation idea was a separate issue; if smoking pot for 30 years turned people into zombies with an uncontrollable desire to eat brains then it should be illegal regardless of other negatives. (I could not think of any issues like this so I made something up for the sake of argument.) PS: You can probably detect pot in the blood of 75% of Americans if you set your threshold low enough. (Second hand smoke from 2 blocks away etc.) That does not mean it's impossible to separate smokers from non smokers just you need to set a reasonable threshold and accept you might miss the occasional smoker.
marltod 16y ago
The most effective argument is that it is a "Gateway Drug". There is no proof that weed makes people use crack or heroin but it is a good way to scare the public.
- awolf 16y ago
  Marijuana is a gateway drug to other illegal drugs because it itself is illegal. In order to get marijuana you need to go see a guy that is ALSO selling other drugs (the kind that are actually dangerous). Legal marijuana makes it so that people don't start using more dangerous drugs on a whim. They are no longer presented with an easy opportunity. If pot is on the same level as alcohol which do you think is more of a gateway drug? One that makes you introverted and cautious or one that makes you more confident while simultaneously impairing your judgement?
  - pyre 16y ago
    It's also a 'gateway drug' in that you don't go crazy and commit mass-murder when you try it the first time, so you start to disbelieve all of the anti-drug propaganda and maybe decide that 'they' were lying about the harder drugs too.
ErrantX 16y ago
I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization. I have a couple of pretty simple one (it's worth considering). The long term affects of pot abuse are pretty easy to develop - I've seen medium-heavy users become fairly "brain dead" after several years of use. This is entirely from observation but it seems to occur faster than the same effect due to alcohol abuse. As a result we could see quite a few problems from more long term users. It is also harder to determine if someone is under the influence. This would mean some industries would have to begin mandatory drug testing prior to performing sensitive work - random examples: doctors, pilots. That's costly, time consuming etc. And if the long term affects of the drug are as pronounced as I suspect you could see heavy abusers in those fields actually pass drug tests and still fail to concentrate at a critical moment. It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.
- pstuart 16y ago
  But this presumes that keeping it illegal prevents people from using it, and it clearly doesn't. Mandatory drug tests are common already (Home Depot does drug tests on all employees -- don't you feel safer about hardware?) People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry. >It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs. No it doesn't. It's safer than other existing legal drugs: http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ A gallery of loser stoners: http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/ http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-po... And if it is a concern about people's health, why is it treated as a criminal matter?
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry. Solid point. I can't disagree. Possibly the only issue worth raising is that cannabis influence may not be as physically obvious as those things you mention. For example a nurse may notice a brain surgeon is looking fatigued and raise concerns, but if on drugs his attention may wander at random moments which are not immediately obvious in the same way.

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.

by pstuart 16y ago

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization.

hugh3 16y ago

I was tempted to give one, but I don't think this is a good forum for discussing such a boring political issue. Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere.

fjabre 16y ago
Why? Flag the posting then. It's certainly relevant to the article.
blhack 16y ago
>Please keep pro/anti drug legalization arguments elsewhere. Please don't take this the wrong way, but your account is 49 days old...I'm not sure that you're at the "I get to tell people what sorts of discussions they're allowed to have" stage yet, especially not to people that have been here for almost three years.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Would it be okay if I had been around for 1021 days like this guy? http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hugh http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=hugh
  - blhack 16y ago
    Honestly? Not really. It's an open forum, I don't think it's really ever good form to tell somebody "hey, you're not supposed to talk about that here." (unless it's spam, in which case, just downvote. Saying "don't talk about that" is off-topic and has been specifically addressed by PG in the past.) I'm sorry I didn't know that you had an alt account, it's just annoying when people start showing up and trying to dictate how things "should be" to established members of an existing community.
jokermatt999 16y ago
I'm new(ish) here, but I don't see why not. HN tends to have a much better atmosphere for serious discussion than most web forums I've seen. I'd be happy to hear both sides of this argument here, and hopefully to see more reasonable debate than what is usually presented.
- davidw 16y ago
  It has a pleasant atmosphere in part because it mostly avoids inflammatory topics like politics. I'd much rather talk startups and business, and maybe living abroad with patio11, for instance, than discuss why he's a Republican and I'm not. The former is bound to be a useful, interesting discussion; the latter most likely not. Actually, I'd be ok with the latter discussion too, but only in person, not on an internet fourm.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

aptimpropriety 16y ago

Try this thread from a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=554166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=554166 which links to this article: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali... Perhaps not an argument against, but certainly a 'reality' check argument against the "it's so obvious we should do it" mentality that seems to thrive in online forums.

Retric 16y ago
Work is hard, let's go shopping. Is a poor argument. The real issue is the total difficulty of all issues not simply the number of them. EX: A "major" issue is it's hard to detect if someone is currently under the effects of pot. Because, apparently drug test are designed to detect if you have smoked not if you are currently impaired. However, an officer can do a road side sobriety test without using a breatilizer so it's not a real issue. Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own.
- moe 16y ago
  Now if there was some sort of bioaccumulation of pot ever time that caused massive issues then that single issue could prevent legalization on its own. I don't see a problem. Pot use can be detected, sometimes days (or weeks) after. The law in most of europe is simple: If you're tested positive while driving then your license is gone. Seems fair enough.
  - Retric 16y ago
    My point is if you get high and are only impaired for 8 hours then after 8 hours if you are not impared you should be able to drive. If you must wait 2 weeks after smoking to drive then it's not exactly legal for most people. The bioaccumulation idea was a separate issue; if smoking pot for 30 years turned people into zombies with an uncontrollable desire to eat brains then it should be illegal regardless of other negatives. (I could not think of any issues like this so I made something up for the sake of argument.) PS: You can probably detect pot in the blood of 75% of Americans if you set your threshold low enough. (Second hand smoke from 2 blocks away etc.) That does not mean it's impossible to separate smokers from non smokers just you need to set a reasonable threshold and accept you might miss the occasional smoker.

marltod 16y ago

The most effective argument is that it is a "Gateway Drug". There is no proof that weed makes people use crack or heroin but it is a good way to scare the public.

awolf 16y ago
Marijuana is a gateway drug to other illegal drugs because it itself is illegal. In order to get marijuana you need to go see a guy that is ALSO selling other drugs (the kind that are actually dangerous). Legal marijuana makes it so that people don't start using more dangerous drugs on a whim. They are no longer presented with an easy opportunity. If pot is on the same level as alcohol which do you think is more of a gateway drug? One that makes you introverted and cautious or one that makes you more confident while simultaneously impairing your judgement?
- pyre 16y ago
  It's also a 'gateway drug' in that you don't go crazy and commit mass-murder when you try it the first time, so you start to disbelieve all of the anti-drug propaganda and maybe decide that 'they' were lying about the harder drugs too.

ErrantX 16y ago

I have yet to hear a cogent argument against legalization. I have a couple of pretty simple one (it's worth considering). The long term affects of pot abuse are pretty easy to develop - I've seen medium-heavy users become fairly "brain dead" after several years of use. This is entirely from observation but it seems to occur faster than the same effect due to alcohol abuse. As a result we could see quite a few problems from more long term users. It is also harder to determine if someone is under the influence. This would mean some industries would have to begin mandatory drug testing prior to performing sensitive work - random examples: doctors, pilots. That's costly, time consuming etc. And if the long term affects of the drug are as pronounced as I suspect you could see heavy abusers in those fields actually pass drug tests and still fail to concentrate at a critical moment. It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs.

pstuart 16y ago
But this presumes that keeping it illegal prevents people from using it, and it clearly doesn't. Mandatory drug tests are common already (Home Depot does drug tests on all employees -- don't you feel safer about hardware?) People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry. >It's certainly an area that needs a lot more research before legalization occurs. No it doesn't. It's safer than other existing legal drugs: http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/ A gallery of loser stoners: http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/ http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-po... And if it is a concern about people's health, why is it treated as a criminal matter?
- ErrantX 16y ago
  People's performance are also impacted by stress, sleep deprivation, etc. - they should be monitored for performance, not blood chemistry. Solid point. I can't disagree. Possibly the only issue worth raising is that cannabis influence may not be as physically obvious as those things you mention. For example a nurse may notice a brain surgeon is looking fatigued and raise concerns, but if on drugs his attention may wander at random moments which are not immediately obvious in the same way.