7 ms·

I don't know what the answer is for all drugs, but Marijuana should obviously be legal, so that's a good place to start. If we wait for the perfect answer to al

by paul 16y ago

I don't know what the answer is for all drugs, but Marijuana should obviously be legal, so that's a good place to start. If we wait for the perfect answer to all questions, we'll never fix anything.

jbail 16y ago
Well said. Thanks for standing up on a tough issue.
credo 16y ago
jbail was referring to my comment which was posted a few minutes earlier than his. However, my question was a bit more pointed and I think you haven't addressed it. The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs. If different drugs have different answers, why didn't you (or why don't you) explain why your argument is limited to marijuana. OTH if you strongly believe in the philosophy outlined in your post, what is stopping you from endorsing similar initiatives for cocaine and why would cocaine potentially need a different answer ? [edit] I see a lot of good responses, but all of them special-case marijuana (e.g. marijuana is less addictive than heroin). This is fine, but Paul's post has flowery language about freedom and all of that language is applicable to heroin as well. Paul's post doesn't make the case for special-casing marijuana. On the contrary, if he denied the principles of "freedom" for cocaine, it would undermine his post which is all about "freedom" and nothing about marijuana being less dangerous than cocaine etc.
- aero142 16y ago
  There is a trade off in this sort of policy. Prohibition leads to organized crime and violence in the black market. It also leads users into a world surrounded by crime and illegality and makes it harder to deal with addiction. On the other hand, legalization can make drugs more available and possibly enable more users. Hard drugs like meth and herion are extremely addictive and damaging. Many people never recover once addicted and seldom lead normal lives. Marijuana on the other hand does not share these traits to the same extreme. I think the tradeoff for marijuana is clearly on the legalization side. As for other hard drugs, the tradeoff is less clear whether society would be better off.
- srbloom 16y ago
  I can't answer for the grandparent, but I would imagine it has to do with how he evaluates the dangerousness of these drugs relative to the consequences of their illegality.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs. Cocaine was legal before it became illegal. What results il-legalization of cocaine have produced? More crime and more funding for crime organizations - check. What else? Look at the history of opium as well. And don't even start about LSD - the drug my reading about have discovered it having only positive benefits so far.
  - rick888 16y ago
    "Look at the history of opium as well." You mean the fact that it was legal in China about 500 years ago and it nearly created an entire country of addicts? Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal, yet there is still a black market for it. I would also be interested to see "your reading" where LSD only had "positive benefits".
    - matwood 16y ago
      Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal If you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal.
      - rick888 16y ago
        "f you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal." Right..so why fight for other forms of it then? Also, it didn't stop people from selling it on the black market (like so many proponents would like you to believe)
        VBprogrammer 16y ago
        It may be legal, but not in the sense that access to it is unrestricted. I can't think of a situation where it is possible for a black market to exist for a legal and unrestricted product. Not that I'm arguing for or against just enjoying seeing the opinion of other HN readers.
        16y ago
- jerf 16y ago
  Everybody will have different answers, but when you change even one side of the cost/benefit equation, the answer can change. For me, the cost of marijuana prohibition is too high and the benefits too low. Based on what I've seen in my life in those around me, I do think smoking marijuana a lot is a bad idea. I can't scientifically determine if it makes you spacey or if spacey people are drawn to it, but it doesn't seem to be a good sign overall. But, there are a lot of other equally dangerous or even more dangerous things that we don't legally prohibit, and while I think it's probably bad for you, it's not that bad for you. Consistent alcohol abuse certainly seems worse. The other deciding factor for me personally is the addictiveness of a drug. Marijuana may be addictive, but I've seen people successfully quit, even without seeming to exert that much will power. I am much less inclined to legalize the drugs that snare you on the first hit, for two basic reasons: First, the very fact that they do ensnare you, and second, because if we legalize them today, the drugs that could be designed under a legalization regime are even more dangerous. I don't think I want to release the full power of a free-market economy on the task of producing a chemical that makes you feel good (and better yet requires repeated purchases); that's just asking for trouble. Careful observers may note that tobacco as it stands now pretty much fails my test for legalization. As a practical matter it would have to be grandfathered in, but yes, I actually do think nicotine's demonstrated ability to snare you physiologically on the first hit is actually pretty dangerous and may really be on the wrong side of my personal legalization line.
  - ursablanco 16y ago
    well, of course recent research has linked the highly modified strains of marijuana (ie, very high THC, reduced companion and modifying compounds) with schizophrenia and other disorders. This has fatal consequences, as I can attest to. See: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2010/downsideofhigh/ http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2010/downside...
    - yanowitz 16y ago
      This study smells of FUD. Has there been on overall spike in schizophrenia that one would expect? What's the sample size? What's the hypothesis on the mechanism (just saying correlation isn't good enough)? Etc. It also has little to do with the debate over prohibition, since prohibition has done little to curb consumption but certainly incentivized stronger strains.
- elai 16y ago
  It's not a perfect solution, but it's a significantly better state of being than what it is currently, as he said in his blog article. Marijuana is a large part of the market, so it will be a significant chunk. Marijuana is also more practical for people to say yes to than drugs such as heroin. One step at a time.
- whackedspinach 16y ago
  I have been saying for a while that we should just legalize all drugs, for excalty the same reasons outlined in Paul's post. I don't care what people do to their own bodies as long as it isn't harming anyone else. However, I can see a lot of anti-drug organizations and charities popping up to educate people on the dangers of heroin, etc. Hopefully that will give us the maximum freedom while also providing some good drug education to reduce the amount of heavy drug addictions.
uuilly 16y ago
The worst side effect of the drug trade is that it funds a worldwide network of highly capable smugglers. To them drugs are just an arbitrary material to be moved from point A to point B. Drug networks move terrorists, weapons, nuclear material, slaves and child prostitutes just as easily as they move bags of powder. But drugs are the smugglers' bread and butter. The other more harmful things are just the salt. But demand for the more harmful cargo is not sufficient enough to fund such a large and competent industry. I worked in the MIL/INTEL world for a long time and a staggering number of really nasty things turned up amongst bags of powder all over the world. Drug networks are like VPN for physical objects. And drug producers would happily abandon that protocol for FEDEX if they could. The remaining market for moving things we truly cannot live with would be reduced by many orders of magnitude if we gave up on the drug war.
- xelipe 16y ago
  I like how everybody is an expert on the drug trade because we've all seen a 60 Minutes piece on violence in Mexico. Violence in Mexico is not a new trend and neither is the hysteria of violence spilling over. The fear of violence spilling in to the United States from Mexico was prominent one other time, during the Mexican Revolution. The current thread of drug related violence in Mexico is often attributed to the presidency of Felipe Calderon but it can actually be traced back to at least 25 years as it is evident in the culture of the narco that is prevalent there. We can shut down the drug cartels in Mexico, like we did in Columbia, but the drug trade will be next be passed to another country like a baton. The next country to be promoted as a drug state will be Afghanistan with it's fields of poppies fulling the growing heroin demand. I'm all for Proposition 19, but legalizing marijuana will not stop drug cartels just like legalizing prostitution does not stop the flow on human traffic.
  - uuilly 16y ago
    I was talking about Afghanistan, opium and RPG's. I was also speaking from personal experience not from TV experience.
    - 16y ago
sigzero 16y ago
I always wonder what "legal" means in this case. I agree it should definitely be medically legal. I do not agree that it should be generally legal.

by paul 16y ago

I don't know what the answer is for all drugs, but Marijuana should obviously be legal, so that's a good place to start. If we wait for the perfect answer to all questions, we'll never fix anything.

jbail 16y ago

Well said. Thanks for standing up on a tough issue.

credo 16y ago

jbail was referring to my comment which was posted a few minutes earlier than his. However, my question was a bit more pointed and I think you haven't addressed it. The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs. If different drugs have different answers, why didn't you (or why don't you) explain why your argument is limited to marijuana. OTH if you strongly believe in the philosophy outlined in your post, what is stopping you from endorsing similar initiatives for cocaine and why would cocaine potentially need a different answer ? [edit] I see a lot of good responses, but all of them special-case marijuana (e.g. marijuana is less addictive than heroin). This is fine, but Paul's post has flowery language about freedom and all of that language is applicable to heroin as well. Paul's post doesn't make the case for special-casing marijuana. On the contrary, if he denied the principles of "freedom" for cocaine, it would undermine his post which is all about "freedom" and nothing about marijuana being less dangerous than cocaine etc.

aero142 16y ago
There is a trade off in this sort of policy. Prohibition leads to organized crime and violence in the black market. It also leads users into a world surrounded by crime and illegality and makes it harder to deal with addiction. On the other hand, legalization can make drugs more available and possibly enable more users. Hard drugs like meth and herion are extremely addictive and damaging. Many people never recover once addicted and seldom lead normal lives. Marijuana on the other hand does not share these traits to the same extreme. I think the tradeoff for marijuana is clearly on the legalization side. As for other hard drugs, the tradeoff is less clear whether society would be better off.
srbloom 16y ago
I can't answer for the grandparent, but I would imagine it has to do with how he evaluates the dangerousness of these drugs relative to the consequences of their illegality.
VladRussian 16y ago
>The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs. Cocaine was legal before it became illegal. What results il-legalization of cocaine have produced? More crime and more funding for crime organizations - check. What else? Look at the history of opium as well. And don't even start about LSD - the drug my reading about have discovered it having only positive benefits so far.
- rick888 16y ago
  "Look at the history of opium as well." You mean the fact that it was legal in China about 500 years ago and it nearly created an entire country of addicts? Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal, yet there is still a black market for it. I would also be interested to see "your reading" where LSD only had "positive benefits".
  - matwood 16y ago
    Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal If you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal.
    - rick888 16y ago
      "f you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal." Right..so why fight for other forms of it then? Also, it didn't stop people from selling it on the black market (like so many proponents would like you to believe)
      - VBprogrammer 16y ago
        It may be legal, but not in the sense that access to it is unrestricted. I can't think of a situation where it is possible for a black market to exist for a legal and unrestricted product. Not that I'm arguing for or against just enjoying seeing the opinion of other HN readers.
      - 16y ago
jerf 16y ago
Everybody will have different answers, but when you change even one side of the cost/benefit equation, the answer can change. For me, the cost of marijuana prohibition is too high and the benefits too low. Based on what I've seen in my life in those around me, I do think smoking marijuana a lot is a bad idea. I can't scientifically determine if it makes you spacey or if spacey people are drawn to it, but it doesn't seem to be a good sign overall. But, there are a lot of other equally dangerous or even more dangerous things that we don't legally prohibit, and while I think it's probably bad for you, it's not that bad for you. Consistent alcohol abuse certainly seems worse. The other deciding factor for me personally is the addictiveness of a drug. Marijuana may be addictive, but I've seen people successfully quit, even without seeming to exert that much will power. I am much less inclined to legalize the drugs that snare you on the first hit, for two basic reasons: First, the very fact that they do ensnare you, and second, because if we legalize them today, the drugs that could be designed under a legalization regime are even more dangerous. I don't think I want to release the full power of a free-market economy on the task of producing a chemical that makes you feel good (and better yet requires repeated purchases); that's just asking for trouble. Careful observers may note that tobacco as it stands now pretty much fails my test for legalization. As a practical matter it would have to be grandfathered in, but yes, I actually do think nicotine's demonstrated ability to snare you physiologically on the first hit is actually pretty dangerous and may really be on the wrong side of my personal legalization line.
- ursablanco 16y ago
  well, of course recent research has linked the highly modified strains of marijuana (ie, very high THC, reduced companion and modifying compounds) with schizophrenia and other disorders. This has fatal consequences, as I can attest to. See: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2010/downsideofhigh/ http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2010/downside...
  - yanowitz 16y ago
    This study smells of FUD. Has there been on overall spike in schizophrenia that one would expect? What's the sample size? What's the hypothesis on the mechanism (just saying correlation isn't good enough)? Etc. It also has little to do with the debate over prohibition, since prohibition has done little to curb consumption but certainly incentivized stronger strains.
elai 16y ago
It's not a perfect solution, but it's a significantly better state of being than what it is currently, as he said in his blog article. Marijuana is a large part of the market, so it will be a significant chunk. Marijuana is also more practical for people to say yes to than drugs such as heroin. One step at a time.
whackedspinach 16y ago
I have been saying for a while that we should just legalize all drugs, for excalty the same reasons outlined in Paul's post. I don't care what people do to their own bodies as long as it isn't harming anyone else. However, I can see a lot of anti-drug organizations and charities popping up to educate people on the dangers of heroin, etc. Hopefully that will give us the maximum freedom while also providing some good drug education to reduce the amount of heavy drug addictions.

uuilly 16y ago

The worst side effect of the drug trade is that it funds a worldwide network of highly capable smugglers. To them drugs are just an arbitrary material to be moved from point A to point B. Drug networks move terrorists, weapons, nuclear material, slaves and child prostitutes just as easily as they move bags of powder. But drugs are the smugglers' bread and butter. The other more harmful things are just the salt. But demand for the more harmful cargo is not sufficient enough to fund such a large and competent industry. I worked in the MIL/INTEL world for a long time and a staggering number of really nasty things turned up amongst bags of powder all over the world. Drug networks are like VPN for physical objects. And drug producers would happily abandon that protocol for FEDEX if they could. The remaining market for moving things we truly cannot live with would be reduced by many orders of magnitude if we gave up on the drug war.

xelipe 16y ago
I like how everybody is an expert on the drug trade because we've all seen a 60 Minutes piece on violence in Mexico. Violence in Mexico is not a new trend and neither is the hysteria of violence spilling over. The fear of violence spilling in to the United States from Mexico was prominent one other time, during the Mexican Revolution. The current thread of drug related violence in Mexico is often attributed to the presidency of Felipe Calderon but it can actually be traced back to at least 25 years as it is evident in the culture of the narco that is prevalent there. We can shut down the drug cartels in Mexico, like we did in Columbia, but the drug trade will be next be passed to another country like a baton. The next country to be promoted as a drug state will be Afghanistan with it's fields of poppies fulling the growing heroin demand. I'm all for Proposition 19, but legalizing marijuana will not stop drug cartels just like legalizing prostitution does not stop the flow on human traffic.
- uuilly 16y ago
  I was talking about Afghanistan, opium and RPG's. I was also speaking from personal experience not from TV experience.
  - 16y ago

sigzero 16y ago

I always wonder what "legal" means in this case. I agree it should definitely be medically legal. I do not agree that it should be generally legal.