6 ms·

And I can't help feeling that is the kind of industry we should avoid encouraging. I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and it seems a shame to

• zackham 16y ago
  Heavy drinkers can be pretty non-functioning as well, and result in arguably more collateral damage. Most anything can be abused.
  • ErrantX 16y ago
    Absolutely. So, from a rational perspective, why add one more problem to the melting pot? (which is my main point I think)
    • seasoup 16y ago
      Because making it illegal does not make it go away. It certainly hasn't made it difficult to get for those that want it bad enough. Instead, it drives casual users away that know how to control themselves away.
    • zackham 16y ago
      My point is that a potential for abuse is not a specific enough criticism. Drinking and driving is illegal because it endangers property and other people, public drunkenness is illegal because it is a nuisance, smoking in public buildings is illegal (at least here) because it is a health hazard to others; things should not be outlawed for their _potential_ for abuse, the effects of their abuse should be outlawed. I recognize that at this point we probably have a difference of opinion that is difficult to argue past, but I wanted to clarify my position.
      • eru 16y ago
        > public drunkenness is illegal because it is a nuisance Depends on your country. (Also for the other things you mention.)
    • khafra 16y ago
      I think the perspective here is a bit skewed--the problem of abuse is here; it's as widespread as it can get. That problem can be alleviated by legalization: We remove the legal difficulties inherent in asking for help with problematic consumption, and--as illustrated in Portugal, the Netherlands, and other places--may very well decrease consumption, as well.
      • ErrantX 16y ago
        the problem of abuse is here; it's as widespread as it can get. If by widespread you mean it is everywhere then agreed. If you mean in terms of numbers I disagree - it strikes me as logical that a legalized drug will have more users, and equably more abuser. That problem can be alleviated by legalization: We remove the legal difficulties inherent in asking for help with problematic consumption I agree with the last part. But am unconvinced that legalization is required to achieve that - just decriminalize personal possession, or remove any legal fall out associated with rehab/drugs help. If that's our sole reason for legalization I don't think it stands up.
        • heed 16y ago
          Just because a substance is legalized doesn't mean its users are resolved of all responsibility when using said substance. As with alcohol, there should be consequences for being under the influence and restrictions on how to obtain it. The point of making pot legal is so that casual users aren't fined or criminally punished for having a joint after work.
          • ErrantX 16y ago
            The point of making pot legal is so that casual users aren't fined or criminally punished for having a joint after work. Ah, well that seems reasonable. I'd actually come out in support of decriminalization - it seems to have tentatively worked in countries where it has been trialled.
• pavel_lishin 16y ago
  Well, then we should avoid encouraging fast food, liquor, and a lot of other things. Plus there may be some selection bias going on. How do you know that some of your high-functioning coworkers aren't heavy pot smokers when they get home?
  • dantheman 16y ago
    yeah carl sagan was pretty high functioning guy
  • ErrantX 16y ago
    Plus there may be some selection bias going on. How do you know that some of your high-functioning coworkers aren't heavy pot smokers when they get home? That doesn't make sense. There is a definite/noticeable slump below the norm for all the pot smokers I know (off hand count; perhaps 20-25) across a wide variety of jobs/ages. Certainly some high functioning people I know could be abusers behind closed doors; but they exhibit none of the standard symptoms so it's hard to imagine that is true... (I will try and do some surveying though :)) In other words; you really need to find a high functioning heavy pot smoker to give the theory credence - and I don't think that is going to be easy. Well, then we should avoid encouraging fast food, liquor, and a lot of other things We are already doing that; indeed for several years now there have actually been campaigns to discourage the overuse of those things.
    • novum 16y ago
      I'd call myself a high-functioning pot smoker. Didn't touch the stuff for my entire life until I moved to SF. Certainly didn't expect to become a regular. By day I'm a software developer. I smoke most nights, and I still get good work done (although it sometimes takes me longer). Have you ever gotten into a 'groove' when programming, when time fades away and you're generally very productive? Well, it's like that with pot...but more often, and to a greater degree. It just makes everything better. Music sounds better, food tastes better, conversation is funnier, movies are epic-er, heck, even the laundry is fun again. Tonight I'm going to a concert, and I wouldn't dream of going sober.
• subwindow 16y ago
  I mean; heavy pot smokers are pretty non-functioning and it seems a shame to risk more lively minds to that drudgery.  Correlation does not equal causation. People with no ambition tend to smoke pot frequently. However, that does not mean that people with ambition will lose it if they smoke pot. Anecdotally it has little or no effect on the ability of a person to "function."
  • ErrantX 16y ago
    You see, I have anecdotal evidence that this is the case (which is why I agrue we need to start real studies into the affects of pot before any decision can be made). I have a couple of extremely bright friends (one of them was possibly the smartest guy I've met) who became pot abusers for all manner of reasons. One wanted (and had the skills) to be a stock broker. He spent the first summer of university trading and made a really strong start. But from the second year onwards his pot habit inhibited his learning/development and he now does door-to-door collections for a charity on minimum wage. He was probably my second closest friend at university so I am absolutely sure that cannabis was the cause of his decline.
    • jacquesm 16y ago
      I have several examples like that in my circle of friends, but I could also point you to at least one guy worth about 60 million euros that is a heavy pot smoker and a few others that did very well. I think it is about the person at least as much as it is about the drugs, some people can deal with things like this better than others.
    • pstuart 16y ago
      How many drunks do you know?
      • ErrantX 16y ago
        percentage wise; a lot less than the badly affected pot smokers :)
• fjabre 16y ago
  The data suggests otherwise: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.ht... If you're going to lobby for prohibition of pot then please also focus your attention on alcohol as well. This is a far worse 'drug' IMO than marijuana could ever be. I don't understand how anyone could think alcohol should be legal but not marijuana. EDIT: Also notice from the linked article that drug use actually went down after legalization in Portugal.
• mattmaroon 16y ago
  You're making the mistake of thinking that illegalization reduces exposure to it. Study after study shows this to be untrue.
• scythe 16y ago
  >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?
  • ErrantX 16y ago
    For the record; no I don't believe that is a solution either.
    • scythe 16y ago
      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.
• cageface 16y ago
  But this is formulating the question in the wrong way. The question isn't whether or not pot use is a good thing. The question is what is the most rational and empirical and effective social policy. If you begin with the assumption that you can effectively control use, you're probably already off on the wrong track, based on the results of almost 100 years of failed policy.
  • ErrantX 16y ago
    Yeh, your dead right. It's probably worth saying now that I am partly playing devils advocate here because I suspect (from previous times this has come up) that the overriding consensus here is pro-legalization. I think it's interesting to provoke some debate where the pro-prohibition side isn't a troll/idiot (again, like has happened in the past). So; not currently on the side of legalization, but not on the opposite side either (though happy to play it temporarily) My real feeling? I'm still not convinced by full legalization but equally not behind the current hardline attitudes. I've seen the negative effects of drugs - and they can be pretty awful for some. If we can offset those using education, taxation, decriminalization and other methods then that seems a great way to start - then legalization becomes a possibility in my eyes (consider it this way: trying to address the problems of alcohol abuse before it becomes widespread/common) I'd like to think my aim is to help protect those who might be adversely affected by drug legalization rather than deliberately trying to prevent people having the choice. EDIT: interested as to why the downvote. Is it for admitting to playing devils advocate - I only ask because if that proves unpopular Ill avoid it in future :)