16 ms·

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost".

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisation has been a success. It's the same blinkered thinking as the anti-gay marriage politicians claiming that it will cause the breakdown of families, or politicians claiming that universal healthcare in the USA clearly wouldn't work. Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. It has cost governments trillions of dollars and incarcerated millions, funded terrorism and civil wars, and caused the deaths of millions of people from both violence and drug related harm. Plus the harm caused by the demonisation of drugs that have potentially powerful positive effects as part of psychiatric treatment such as LSD and MDMA. All due to some concept that taking "recreational drugs" is a moral failing and hence should be illegal. At least society in genera has finally come around to realise that drug addiction and drug use are not moral failings (although my parents aren't quite convinced). Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs, such as heroin or methamphetamine, which are so harmful and addictive that nobody should be using them, or GHB, where the potential for fatal overdose is so high. But penalising the end user is not the solution. People who want to take drugs will take drugs. I have never met somebody who has decided to not take a drug because it's illegal. Whether it was alcohol when underaged, smoking a joint, injecting heroin, or snorting cocaine. I know plenty of people who don't take drugs as a personal choice or because they get drug tested at work, but never was the law a reason why the abstained. It doesn't restrict supply either. Drugs are easy to find and readily available practically everywhere in the world, all that prohibition does is push up the price, fund criminals, and increase harm due to poor quality control and cut drugs. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44526156

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maym86 8y ago
Seems like with weed it's just a matter of time but in the case of the conservative government why change it if their older voter base isn't asking for it and a portion of them would have a negative reaction if they did. I guess they think the risk of loosing some of their base is too high. I love the work of David Nutt, who was fired from the role of Government drug advisor in the UK for trying to change the government's policies. He cited papers about how some drugs are less harmful then alcohol, tobacco and horse riding (equacy). He spoke truth and backed it up with scientific research and the Labour government fired him because it was inconvient. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4537874/Ecstasy-no-more-dangerous-than-horse-riding.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/453787...
- thinkingemote 8y ago
  The only way for it to come is via the medical route channel, as seen in the recent news story. "Think of the poor suffering innocents"
- fredley 8y ago
  I recently read David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air, which turned out to be very timely. A fantastic book that really sets out the case for evidence-based classification (and legalisation) of drugs, based on the approach of minimising harm (not minimising drug-use).
- windows_tips 8y ago
  UK government is unlawful. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/p122 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-i...
int_19h 8y ago
The irony of Brits saying these things specifically, is that they were one of the first to formally study the social effects of cannabis, as early as 1894 - and before all the Anslinger madness. Here's what they found - note the conclusion especially: "In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. There may be exceptional cases in which, owing to idiosyncrasies of constitution, the drugs in even moderate use may be injurious. There is probably nothing the use of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance. In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer. Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature in this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation. The large number of witnesses of all classes who professed never to have seen these effects, the vague statements made by many who professed to have observed them, the very few witnesses who could so recall a case as to give any definite account of it, and the manner in which a large proportion of these cases broke down on the first attempt to examine them, are facts which combine to show most clearly how little injury society has hitherto sustained from hemp drugs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission)
ams6110 8y ago
Drug use is a moral failing, it sounds like you just don't like the morality. Morals are not necessarily what is convenient or fun or pleasurable. In some interpretations, moderate use is not a moral failing, but heavy or compulsive use is. All that applies to alcohol as well, so I agree if we're going say that alcohol is legal, then other drugs used in similar ways should be legal as well.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- malnourish 8y ago
  A moral failing according to whom? Why should we listen to your arbitration on morality?
b6 8y ago
> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs It's not obvious to me. The fundamental question is, does an individual own their own body? If the answer is yes, then don't try to restrict what I can do with it so long as I don't harm anyone else. If the answer is no, well, then we need to firm up exactly what the arrangement is supposed to be.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  I guess it depends on your philosophy of government and society. If you live in a social democracy with universal healthcare, drugs policy should probably be based around harm reduction. This is why helmets are required on bicycles (in some countries, for better or worse) and you need to wear a seatbelt in the car. It's your body, but the public has to pick up the tab when you break it. I don't think that you should be able to go to the pharmacy and buy heroin or methamphetamine off the shelf. The potential for abuse is too high. However, as I said, people will find drugs if they want them. If I wanted to buy some heroin, I could find some within 30 minutes just walking down the street. I really don't know what the solution is.
  - foolfoolz 8y ago
    I think this is a slippery slope. Drug legalization shouldn't be about reducing harm to optimize cost effective economics of keeping people alive. If that were true then you would have the power to outlaw anything that isn't healthy in the name of saving public tax dollars. Cigarettes. Soda. Deep fried foods. Watching too much TV. Sky diving. etc. Drug legalization is about using public funds on other issues besides individual drug users, reducing prison populations for non-violent drug offenders, offering those in need treatment instead of incarceration, removing an income stream for gangs
    - neilwilson 8y ago
      Drug legalisation is about corporations making a lot of money providing yet another thing to keep a good section of the population docile and in their worker pens. Why do you need prisons when people will voluntarily imprison themselves?
ttul 8y ago
I just want to point out that GHB isn’t so dangerous as you point out, relative to the other major drugs (not least of them alcohol). See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rational... for a nice graphical summary. You can go to a liquor store today and purchase a lethal amount of alcohol for about $20. And it’s lawful to advertise the stuff. GHB is less harmful, but it’s illegal.
- Swizec 8y ago
  Depends on where. In a lot of Europe (and afaik also Canada) alcohol purchasing times are heavily regulated to combat binge, especially youth, drinking. For example no alcohol sales past 9pm, no sales before 10am etc. And you can’t advertise drinking. You can promote brands, but not drinking directly. Which is weird and I don’t know how the line is defined, but it exists in at least some countries I’ve been to.
  - omnimus 8y ago
    Well "a lot of Europe" really means Scandinavia. To be precise it is only Norway, Finland and Sweden where alcohol is sold only by one brand of state owned shops. As far as i know you can drink whatever you want, when you want after you are 18. Notable exception is Germany where from 16 you can drink undistilled drinks like beer and wine. Oh we had lot of fun when i was 16 on our school trip to Germany. Good times. About advertising i think it applies again to Scandinavia. Overall i think people have pretty positive drinking habits in europe. Most people try it early and drink quite regulary meaning they can manage it without much problems.
    - Pete_D 8y ago
      Ontario, Canada is similar: state-run shops have a monopoly on the sale of alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontari...). They're about to do the same with weed ("in September 2017 the Government of Ontario announced that the LCBO would be the sole vendor of recreational marijuana to the public in that province").
wiradikusuma 8y ago
But would it be the gateway to heavier, and illegal/dangerous, drugs?
- malnourish 8y ago
  Everyone who's tried meth has drank water.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    While true, that’s not going to convince anyone. A better argument, from what I’ve heard, is that the real “gateway drug” is underage smoking.
- smcl 8y ago
  I've never been persuaded by the "gateway drug" argument - as if you're destined to seek more exotic or intense highs once you've tried one type of drug. If it were true then a huge amount of UK university students would end up as heroin addicts or something. The only part of this "slippery slope" argument I can believe works in favour of legalisation. That there's got to be some amount of "well I've tried weed, it is illegal and my experience proves that what I was taught about it in school was a lie - why not try coke/mdma/ghb/etc..". I don't know how common this line of thinking is but it's certainly something that was on my mind a LOT after I was smoking weed in uni.
Iv 8y ago
Conservatism is the instinctive rejection of change. For conservatives, the possible is limited only to what is and what has been. All the rest opens up to unknowns, risks and chaos.
paulie_a 8y ago
While you are referring to a different country...since I was a teenager I basically don't pay attention to laws. I would not go out of my way to break them but I personally don't care if I do. I probably broke three laws since midnight...whoopty Doo.
foolfoolz 8y ago
> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs, such as heroin or methamphetamine, which are so harmful and addictive that nobody should be using them, or GHB, where the potential for fatal overdose is so high. I dont understand this part. The potential for overdose on alcohol is high as well. I can go buy a plastic handle for $10 and if i drink the whole thing tonight i'll probably die. I think the right path is full legalization similar to OTC medicine in the US. You have FDA verification you are actually taking what you think you're taking, no weird fentanyl substitutes or cuttings. You put warning labels on describing dosages and limits. You let people use them and get treatment if they abuse it. It's the same way we treat alcohol, just we are conditioned to think alcohol is somehow way more safe than something like heroin. There are responsible drinkers and responsible heroin users out there. I know it may sound scary but I don't think there's a major inherent harm to having methamphetamine available over the counter. Some people will abuse it. Some people are already abusing it.
- y4mi 8y ago
  its way easier to overdose on hard drugs than alcohol. with alcohol, its a slow progress. you keep drinkng and most people pass out / lose their will to drink after they've had enough. hard drugs are generally a single portion and once its in your blood, its too late. you cant say 'hey, i've got enough for today' once you feel it hitting you. You're already doomed if you've chosen the wrong dosage from the start. > There are responsible drinkers and responsible heroin users out there I cant say i've ever heard of anyone ever using heroine responsibly. I'd have to take your word for it, but thats hard, considering how brutal the effects of heroine are on their users.
  - c22 8y ago
    On the other hand, even if you don't die right away alcohol's no slouch in the finding ways to kill you and ruining lives department.
  - foolfoolz 8y ago
    I think a lot of this can be attributed to these drugs being used in a completely ad hoc manner. There's no usage guidelines on a bag of cocaine. There's no 'Active Ingredient' percentage listed. You dont know what it is. You can't compare it to another until you've had it. Any pill that's an upper is called 'molly' Somehow the vast majority of people who take legal hard drugs such as vicodin or dilaudid, don't overdose on them. There's a culture built around taking these drugs responsibly according to their directions. We have that very strongly ingrained in our culture about alcohol. I think that same culture would develop if your cocaine came in a box from CVS with proper instructions on when you can take it and what side effects to look for. Of course people are going to make mistakes. They are going to abuse drugs. But that is happening today. Trying to solve that by keeping the drugs away sounds like the same policies in the war on drugs that we are saying aren't working and leading to legalization
zachrose 8y ago
> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. The following flavor of comment has been made many times on HN, but since I’m halfway through Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow I’m in the mood for making it again here: The drug war has been “successful”, because its goal was to incarcerate, disenfranchise, extort, terrorize, and break apart the families of minorities so that America could retain a racial hierarchy after the civil rights movement. This hierarchy is advantageous to the ruling class because they can continue to exploit poor whites economically, keep them off the bottom of the hierarchy, and retain their political support. When Reagan declared a War on Drugs in 1982, less than 2% of Americans viewed drug use as the most important issue facing the nation. In 1989 that number was at 64%, all without a significant increase in drug usage. (Rates for drug crimes did increase, because criminality was the effect of the War on Drugs, not its cause.)
- flukus 8y ago
  This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.
  - superflyguy 8y ago
    You're both right. The origins are racial ("Chasing the scream" by Hari is another good resource here) and the brainwashing was successful so for a while now we're stuck with the consequences. When the old stupid racists (who voted for Brexit) finally die (not so long hopefully) younger people (more likely to use or know someone who uses) will legalise it. Politicians just reflect society; it's not true that a clear majority of UK voters want cannabis legal so it's not worth May going against the old farts and the media etc.
    - wsc981 8y ago
      ... When the old stupid racists (who voted for Brexit) finally die (not so long hopefully) ... Over 50% of Great-Britain is stupid and racist? You have a source for this claim?
Consultant32452 8y ago
I think this has to do with the psychology of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives tend to have stronger senses of disgust than liberals and especially libertarians. "Smoking weed is stinky/gross/icky, therefore we gotta ban it." Here's just one article on the link between disgust and political leanings: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201203/are-you-easily-disgusted-you-may-be-conservative https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201... As a personal anecdote about this, I support decriminalization/legalization for all drugs in all cases, not just pot. I not going to debate that here, but only share that to provide context for the following. Last year I visited Los Angeles. The entire time I was there I couldn't get over how bad everything reeked of marijuana. The AirBnB I stayed at was fine, but as soon as I walked outside and as I toured around the city I simply could not escape the smell of weed. It reminded me of the 80s when there was cigarette smoke everywhere, and it was highly unpleasant. I still support legalization, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that experience had me wavering.
- nothrabannosir 8y ago
  I think this is the first good argument I’ve ever heard for legal strictures on marijuana use. The analogy to cigarettes is perfect and proves the original point about legislation: when it starts bothering other people, there’s room for restrictions. That was always the case for legalisation of drugs: “it’s my body, I’m not putting anyone else at risk.” Well, smoke inside only, don’t have windows open because it stinks. No children around. I could, honestly, completely get behind that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- andyjohnson0 8y ago
  > Conservatives tend to have stronger senses of disgust than liberals and especially libertarians. The evidence for neurological origins of political orientation is definitely something that deserves to be more widely known about. In my experience it is rare to see it discussed, and I wonder if the idea makes people uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...
wavegeek 8y ago
> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. Possibly you don't understand the intended outcomes. 1. Provide for the ongoing growth of the FBI's empire once it became apparent that prohibition was going to end. 2. Provide an easy pretext for locking up blacks and hippies/ anti-war protestors. This according Erlichman, one of Richard Nixon's closest aides. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-... Protip: Often the stated reason for a policy is not the real reason. See also "for the children".
bitL 8y ago
We already have many problems caused by alcohol and cigarettes, costing taxpayers billions in unnecessary expenses. I get it, people need to escape reality they live in. We know that some weed smokers end up schizophrenic and that in general smoking weed weakens one's will, so in many cases we end up with grown up children going only after the things attainable by easiest efforts. There are also some legit medical uses that might help a wide range of disorders; those are fine regulated the same way as medical heroin or amphetamines are. However, why open another Pandora's box, add another bunch of disorders to the open, inviting people that would have never used them before, causing them issues? Nobody knows how would their genetic makeup respond to even first absorption of a drug. I.e. the minimal requirement of justice in preventing harm to innocents would be violated. If you however like post-justice post-truth world, then anything goes. Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then? It's natural anyway, observed in animals daily, isn't it? The hard line must be placed somewhere, or not?
- pennaMan 8y ago
  Pandora's box was opened by the first sprouting seed of Cannabis on earth. The prohibition came after, so if anything we're talking about a pre-justice world, aren't we? >Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then?Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then? Because those things cause falsifiable and measurable harm to society. Cannabis use is by all measures benign while its prohibition actually causing real harm.
  - bitL 8y ago
    As I said, those substances are natural, for many people they would be beneficial as well for some specialized uses, like improving one's medical condition. But leaving humans in pure nature "as intended" destroys civilization - regulating behavior is necessary (even if I personally don't like it and tend to think "I know better" when I don't). I would propose an experiment - let's look into history and see which civilizations propagated and which went extinct or ended up zombified in a non-progressive isolated state. I'd bet there will be quite a few where "substance abuse" went through the roof, and those that restricted it either completely or moved it to a dedicated "crazy week" (Bacchanalia?) prospered and progressed. Seems like hardships are necessary for progress/motivation(?), short-circuiting pleasure centers with drugs doesn't move society towards higher complexity and beauty.
iDemonix 8y ago
> He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. Britain is the biggest exporter of Cannabis in the world. The 90-acre farm in the UK is owned by British Sugar, which is owned by the husband of the UK's Drugs Minister (facepalm). Second to that, Theresa May's husband works at a firm that is the largest investor in... you guessed it, British Sugar. Why would Theresa May and the Tory co want to legalise it? That'd mean competition, admitting you've been lying for years, and a big dent in your profits. I have no doubt that as soon as the Tory government is out, we'll see actual progress (in many other areas too).
- mseebach 8y ago
  Yeah, well it's either that, or the significantly simpler explanation that involves very simple electoral maths: the tories are going to get exactly 0 voters to cross over on this policy, but tons of core tory voters might stay home on election day.
  - amarant 8y ago
    this is the problem with our current implementation of democracy. it's more of a popularity contest than it is about doing whats right & best. It's bloody hard to think of an alternative that would work better in this front, while also avoiding risks of turning into a dictatorship, though. hopefully someone smarter than me can think of a way.
  - alex_hitchins 8y ago
    I don't know. A lot of Tory voters today will have medical complaints and be informed enough about medical cannabis to want to try it. Recreational use would be nice, but I'd be less angry with the world if we got medicinal use through. Theresa May by categorically denying recreational use doesn't just show she is doing her job badly, it shows how much she is out of touch with people. Add to this her apology about Grenfell and not being sad enough.
    - mseebach 8y ago
shams93 8y ago
Legalizing cannabis undercuts the opiate industry's monopoly on pain management.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
thinkingemote 8y ago
>But penalising the end user is not the solution But the UK has seen that penalising smoking, by banning it in public indoor spaces and imposing massive taxes has lead to the massive reduction in people smoking and an increase in peoples health. It's not banned, but such a penalisation is a solution. (and the UK want to follow this strategy for sugar)
ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
I don't use cannabis but based on what the NHS has to say about it (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts...) it's probably not a great idea to use it for most people. However it is important not to waste tax revenue going about trying to stop people in a heavy handed manner. The biggest issue with it seems to be around driving, much like alcohol. That is a real problem and people should be made aware that they should not drive under the influence.
- OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
  That document you linked to is laughably outdated and filled with propaganda, not scientific facts.
sametmax 8y ago
> I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisation has been a success. When facing that kind of behavior, I always remind my self that at some point, people advocated against trains because the speed of it would cause eyes damage by watching through the windows and moving that fast from one place to another would have terrible psychological impacts.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

maym86 8y ago

Seems like with weed it's just a matter of time but in the case of the conservative government why change it if their older voter base isn't asking for it and a portion of them would have a negative reaction if they did. I guess they think the risk of loosing some of their base is too high. I love the work of David Nutt, who was fired from the role of Government drug advisor in the UK for trying to change the government's policies. He cited papers about how some drugs are less harmful then alcohol, tobacco and horse riding (equacy). He spoke truth and backed it up with scientific research and the Labour government fired him because it was inconvient. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-adviser-david-nutt-sacked https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/oct/30/drugs-advis... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/4537874/Ecstasy-no-more-dangerous-than-horse-riding.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/453787...

thinkingemote 8y ago
The only way for it to come is via the medical route channel, as seen in the recent news story. "Think of the poor suffering innocents"
fredley 8y ago
I recently read David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air, which turned out to be very timely. A fantastic book that really sets out the case for evidence-based classification (and legalisation) of drugs, based on the approach of minimising harm (not minimising drug-use).
windows_tips 8y ago
UK government is unlawful. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/p122 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-i...

int_19h 8y ago

The irony of Brits saying these things specifically, is that they were one of the first to formally study the social effects of cannabis, as early as 1894 - and before all the Anslinger madness. Here's what they found - note the conclusion especially: "In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all. There may be exceptional cases in which, owing to idiosyncrasies of constitution, the drugs in even moderate use may be injurious. There is probably nothing the use of which may not possibly be injurious in cases of exceptional intolerance. In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind. It may indeed be accepted that in the case of specially marked neurotic diathesis, even the moderate use may produce mental injury. For the slightest mental stimulation or excitement may have that effect in such cases. But putting aside these quite exceptional cases, the moderate use of these drugs produces no mental injury. In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever. There is no adequate ground for believing that it injuriously affects the character of the consumer. Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature in this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation. The large number of witnesses of all classes who professed never to have seen these effects, the vague statements made by many who professed to have observed them, the very few witnesses who could so recall a case as to give any definite account of it, and the manner in which a large proportion of these cases broke down on the first attempt to examine them, are facts which combine to show most clearly how little injury society has hitherto sustained from hemp drugs." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission)

ams6110 8y ago

Drug use is a moral failing, it sounds like you just don't like the morality. Morals are not necessarily what is convenient or fun or pleasurable. In some interpretations, moderate use is not a moral failing, but heavy or compulsive use is. All that applies to alcohol as well, so I agree if we're going say that alcohol is legal, then other drugs used in similar ways should be legal as well.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
malnourish 8y ago
A moral failing according to whom? Why should we listen to your arbitration on morality?

b6 8y ago

> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs It's not obvious to me. The fundamental question is, does an individual own their own body? If the answer is yes, then don't try to restrict what I can do with it so long as I don't harm anyone else. If the answer is no, well, then we need to firm up exactly what the arrangement is supposed to be.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
I guess it depends on your philosophy of government and society. If you live in a social democracy with universal healthcare, drugs policy should probably be based around harm reduction. This is why helmets are required on bicycles (in some countries, for better or worse) and you need to wear a seatbelt in the car. It's your body, but the public has to pick up the tab when you break it. I don't think that you should be able to go to the pharmacy and buy heroin or methamphetamine off the shelf. The potential for abuse is too high. However, as I said, people will find drugs if they want them. If I wanted to buy some heroin, I could find some within 30 minutes just walking down the street. I really don't know what the solution is.
- foolfoolz 8y ago
  I think this is a slippery slope. Drug legalization shouldn't be about reducing harm to optimize cost effective economics of keeping people alive. If that were true then you would have the power to outlaw anything that isn't healthy in the name of saving public tax dollars. Cigarettes. Soda. Deep fried foods. Watching too much TV. Sky diving. etc. Drug legalization is about using public funds on other issues besides individual drug users, reducing prison populations for non-violent drug offenders, offering those in need treatment instead of incarceration, removing an income stream for gangs
  - neilwilson 8y ago
    Drug legalisation is about corporations making a lot of money providing yet another thing to keep a good section of the population docile and in their worker pens. Why do you need prisons when people will voluntarily imprison themselves?

ttul 8y ago

I just want to point out that GHB isn’t so dangerous as you point out, relative to the other major drugs (not least of them alcohol). See https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rational_harm_assessment_of_drugs_radar_plot.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Rational... for a nice graphical summary. You can go to a liquor store today and purchase a lethal amount of alcohol for about $20. And it’s lawful to advertise the stuff. GHB is less harmful, but it’s illegal.

Swizec 8y ago
Depends on where. In a lot of Europe (and afaik also Canada) alcohol purchasing times are heavily regulated to combat binge, especially youth, drinking. For example no alcohol sales past 9pm, no sales before 10am etc. And you can’t advertise drinking. You can promote brands, but not drinking directly. Which is weird and I don’t know how the line is defined, but it exists in at least some countries I’ve been to.
- omnimus 8y ago
  Well "a lot of Europe" really means Scandinavia. To be precise it is only Norway, Finland and Sweden where alcohol is sold only by one brand of state owned shops. As far as i know you can drink whatever you want, when you want after you are 18. Notable exception is Germany where from 16 you can drink undistilled drinks like beer and wine. Oh we had lot of fun when i was 16 on our school trip to Germany. Good times. About advertising i think it applies again to Scandinavia. Overall i think people have pretty positive drinking habits in europe. Most people try it early and drink quite regulary meaning they can manage it without much problems.
  - Pete_D 8y ago
    Ontario, Canada is similar: state-run shops have a monopoly on the sale of alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_Control_Board_of_Ontari...). They're about to do the same with weed ("in September 2017 the Government of Ontario announced that the LCBO would be the sole vendor of recreational marijuana to the public in that province").

wiradikusuma 8y ago

But would it be the gateway to heavier, and illegal/dangerous, drugs?

malnourish 8y ago
Everyone who's tried meth has drank water.
- ben_w 8y ago
  While true, that’s not going to convince anyone. A better argument, from what I’ve heard, is that the real “gateway drug” is underage smoking.
smcl 8y ago
I've never been persuaded by the "gateway drug" argument - as if you're destined to seek more exotic or intense highs once you've tried one type of drug. If it were true then a huge amount of UK university students would end up as heroin addicts or something. The only part of this "slippery slope" argument I can believe works in favour of legalisation. That there's got to be some amount of "well I've tried weed, it is illegal and my experience proves that what I was taught about it in school was a lie - why not try coke/mdma/ghb/etc..". I don't know how common this line of thinking is but it's certainly something that was on my mind a LOT after I was smoking weed in uni.

Iv 8y ago

Conservatism is the instinctive rejection of change. For conservatives, the possible is limited only to what is and what has been. All the rest opens up to unknowns, risks and chaos.

paulie_a 8y ago

While you are referring to a different country...since I was a teenager I basically don't pay attention to laws. I would not go out of my way to break them but I personally don't care if I do. I probably broke three laws since midnight...whoopty Doo.

foolfoolz 8y ago

> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs, such as heroin or methamphetamine, which are so harmful and addictive that nobody should be using them, or GHB, where the potential for fatal overdose is so high. I dont understand this part. The potential for overdose on alcohol is high as well. I can go buy a plastic handle for $10 and if i drink the whole thing tonight i'll probably die. I think the right path is full legalization similar to OTC medicine in the US. You have FDA verification you are actually taking what you think you're taking, no weird fentanyl substitutes or cuttings. You put warning labels on describing dosages and limits. You let people use them and get treatment if they abuse it. It's the same way we treat alcohol, just we are conditioned to think alcohol is somehow way more safe than something like heroin. There are responsible drinkers and responsible heroin users out there. I know it may sound scary but I don't think there's a major inherent harm to having methamphetamine available over the counter. Some people will abuse it. Some people are already abusing it.

y4mi 8y ago
its way easier to overdose on hard drugs than alcohol. with alcohol, its a slow progress. you keep drinkng and most people pass out / lose their will to drink after they've had enough. hard drugs are generally a single portion and once its in your blood, its too late. you cant say 'hey, i've got enough for today' once you feel it hitting you. You're already doomed if you've chosen the wrong dosage from the start. > There are responsible drinkers and responsible heroin users out there I cant say i've ever heard of anyone ever using heroine responsibly. I'd have to take your word for it, but thats hard, considering how brutal the effects of heroine are on their users.
- c22 8y ago
  On the other hand, even if you don't die right away alcohol's no slouch in the finding ways to kill you and ruining lives department.
- foolfoolz 8y ago
  I think a lot of this can be attributed to these drugs being used in a completely ad hoc manner. There's no usage guidelines on a bag of cocaine. There's no 'Active Ingredient' percentage listed. You dont know what it is. You can't compare it to another until you've had it. Any pill that's an upper is called 'molly' Somehow the vast majority of people who take legal hard drugs such as vicodin or dilaudid, don't overdose on them. There's a culture built around taking these drugs responsibly according to their directions. We have that very strongly ingrained in our culture about alcohol. I think that same culture would develop if your cocaine came in a box from CVS with proper instructions on when you can take it and what side effects to look for. Of course people are going to make mistakes. They are going to abuse drugs. But that is happening today. Trying to solve that by keeping the drugs away sounds like the same policies in the war on drugs that we are saying aren't working and leading to legalization

zachrose 8y ago

> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. The following flavor of comment has been made many times on HN, but since I’m halfway through Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow I’m in the mood for making it again here: The drug war has been “successful”, because its goal was to incarcerate, disenfranchise, extort, terrorize, and break apart the families of minorities so that America could retain a racial hierarchy after the civil rights movement. This hierarchy is advantageous to the ruling class because they can continue to exploit poor whites economically, keep them off the bottom of the hierarchy, and retain their political support. When Reagan declared a War on Drugs in 1982, less than 2% of Americans viewed drug use as the most important issue facing the nation. In 1989 that number was at 64%, all without a significant increase in drug usage. (Rates for drug crimes did increase, because criminality was the effect of the War on Drugs, not its cause.)

flukus 8y ago
This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.
- superflyguy 8y ago
  You're both right. The origins are racial ("Chasing the scream" by Hari is another good resource here) and the brainwashing was successful so for a while now we're stuck with the consequences. When the old stupid racists (who voted for Brexit) finally die (not so long hopefully) younger people (more likely to use or know someone who uses) will legalise it. Politicians just reflect society; it's not true that a clear majority of UK voters want cannabis legal so it's not worth May going against the old farts and the media etc.
  - wsc981 8y ago
    ... When the old stupid racists (who voted for Brexit) finally die (not so long hopefully) ... Over 50% of Great-Britain is stupid and racist? You have a source for this claim?

Consultant32452 8y ago

I think this has to do with the psychology of disgust sensitivity. Conservatives tend to have stronger senses of disgust than liberals and especially libertarians. "Smoking weed is stinky/gross/icky, therefore we gotta ban it." Here's just one article on the link between disgust and political leanings: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201203/are-you-easily-disgusted-you-may-be-conservative https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201... As a personal anecdote about this, I support decriminalization/legalization for all drugs in all cases, not just pot. I not going to debate that here, but only share that to provide context for the following. Last year I visited Los Angeles. The entire time I was there I couldn't get over how bad everything reeked of marijuana. The AirBnB I stayed at was fine, but as soon as I walked outside and as I toured around the city I simply could not escape the smell of weed. It reminded me of the 80s when there was cigarette smoke everywhere, and it was highly unpleasant. I still support legalization, but I would be lying if I didn't admit that experience had me wavering.

nothrabannosir 8y ago
I think this is the first good argument I’ve ever heard for legal strictures on marijuana use. The analogy to cigarettes is perfect and proves the original point about legislation: when it starts bothering other people, there’s room for restrictions. That was always the case for legalisation of drugs: “it’s my body, I’m not putting anyone else at risk.” Well, smoke inside only, don’t have windows open because it stinks. No children around. I could, honestly, completely get behind that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
andyjohnson0 8y ago
> Conservatives tend to have stronger senses of disgust than liberals and especially libertarians. The evidence for neurological origins of political orientation is definitely something that deserves to be more widely known about. In my experience it is rare to see it discussed, and I wonder if the idea makes people uncomfortable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientat...

wavegeek 8y ago

> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. Possibly you don't understand the intended outcomes. 1. Provide for the ongoing growth of the FBI's empire once it became apparent that prohibition was going to end. 2. Provide an easy pretext for locking up blacks and hippies/ anti-war protestors. This according Erlichman, one of Richard Nixon's closest aides. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-... Protip: Often the stated reason for a policy is not the real reason. See also "for the children".

bitL 8y ago

We already have many problems caused by alcohol and cigarettes, costing taxpayers billions in unnecessary expenses. I get it, people need to escape reality they live in. We know that some weed smokers end up schizophrenic and that in general smoking weed weakens one's will, so in many cases we end up with grown up children going only after the things attainable by easiest efforts. There are also some legit medical uses that might help a wide range of disorders; those are fine regulated the same way as medical heroin or amphetamines are. However, why open another Pandora's box, add another bunch of disorders to the open, inviting people that would have never used them before, causing them issues? Nobody knows how would their genetic makeup respond to even first absorption of a drug. I.e. the minimal requirement of justice in preventing harm to innocents would be violated. If you however like post-justice post-truth world, then anything goes. Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then? It's natural anyway, observed in animals daily, isn't it? The hard line must be placed somewhere, or not?

pennaMan 8y ago
Pandora's box was opened by the first sprouting seed of Cannabis on earth. The prohibition came after, so if anything we're talking about a pre-justice world, aren't we? >Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then?Why not accept all hard drugs, all sexual deviations, all violent or manipulative behaviors then? Because those things cause falsifiable and measurable harm to society. Cannabis use is by all measures benign while its prohibition actually causing real harm.
- bitL 8y ago
  As I said, those substances are natural, for many people they would be beneficial as well for some specialized uses, like improving one's medical condition. But leaving humans in pure nature "as intended" destroys civilization - regulating behavior is necessary (even if I personally don't like it and tend to think "I know better" when I don't). I would propose an experiment - let's look into history and see which civilizations propagated and which went extinct or ended up zombified in a non-progressive isolated state. I'd bet there will be quite a few where "substance abuse" went through the roof, and those that restricted it either completely or moved it to a dedicated "crazy week" (Bacchanalia?) prospered and progressed. Seems like hardships are necessary for progress/motivation(?), short-circuiting pleasure centers with drugs doesn't move society towards higher complexity and beauty.

iDemonix 8y ago

> He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. Britain is the biggest exporter of Cannabis in the world. The 90-acre farm in the UK is owned by British Sugar, which is owned by the husband of the UK's Drugs Minister (facepalm). Second to that, Theresa May's husband works at a firm that is the largest investor in... you guessed it, British Sugar. Why would Theresa May and the Tory co want to legalise it? That'd mean competition, admitting you've been lying for years, and a big dent in your profits. I have no doubt that as soon as the Tory government is out, we'll see actual progress (in many other areas too).

mseebach 8y ago
Yeah, well it's either that, or the significantly simpler explanation that involves very simple electoral maths: the tories are going to get exactly 0 voters to cross over on this policy, but tons of core tory voters might stay home on election day.
- amarant 8y ago
  this is the problem with our current implementation of democracy. it's more of a popularity contest than it is about doing whats right & best. It's bloody hard to think of an alternative that would work better in this front, while also avoiding risks of turning into a dictatorship, though. hopefully someone smarter than me can think of a way.
- alex_hitchins 8y ago
  I don't know. A lot of Tory voters today will have medical complaints and be informed enough about medical cannabis to want to try it. Recreational use would be nice, but I'd be less angry with the world if we got medicinal use through. Theresa May by categorically denying recreational use doesn't just show she is doing her job badly, it shows how much she is out of touch with people. Add to this her apology about Grenfell and not being sad enough.
  - mseebach 8y ago

shams93 8y ago

Legalizing cannabis undercuts the opiate industry's monopoly on pain management.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

thinkingemote 8y ago

>But penalising the end user is not the solution But the UK has seen that penalising smoking, by banning it in public indoor spaces and imposing massive taxes has lead to the massive reduction in people smoking and an increase in peoples health. It's not banned, but such a penalisation is a solution. (and the UK want to follow this strategy for sugar)

ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago

I don't use cannabis but based on what the NHS has to say about it (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts...) it's probably not a great idea to use it for most people. However it is important not to waste tax revenue going about trying to stop people in a heavy handed manner. The biggest issue with it seems to be around driving, much like alcohol. That is a real problem and people should be made aware that they should not drive under the influence.

OldSchoolJohnny 8y ago
That document you linked to is laughably outdated and filled with propaganda, not scientific facts.

sametmax 8y ago

> I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisation has been a success. When facing that kind of behavior, I always remind my self that at some point, people advocated against trains because the speed of it would cause eyes damage by watching through the windows and moving that fast from one place to another would have terrible psychological impacts.