7 ms·

Maybe this article overstated things and someone will clear it up in the comments but that was painful to read. I live in Vancouver and weed's been officially

Maybe this article overstated things and someone will clear it up in the comments but that was painful to read. I live in Vancouver and weed's been officially legal throughout the Canada for several weeks now. It's still relatively new but nothing noticeable has changed aside from fewer people discussing such a frivilous and previously mishandled issue. It's not perfect but far, far, far better than strict prohibition with draconian sentencing laws. What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. Instead of vocferiously refusing shops to open in a municipality you'd think the free market would be enough to determine where there's not enough demand for a product. I guess if some people prefer being judgemental and pious to actually getting a handle on social issues that's their prerogative. It's a frustrating position to reason against, in fact that almost never enters the equation, but it sure seems to resonate with a lot of people.

jaggederest 8y ago
A lot of the concern is essentially about the precedent it sets. If you start questioning the logic of criminalizing cannabis, what's next on the list? That's the fear driving a lot of the reactionary opposition to a lot of things these days, and I think especially in the tech industry we have to remember that a lot of people don't have our appetite for risk. Personally I think we as a society have demonstrated a considerable capacity for adaptation, so there's little to worry about, but my extended family certainly disagrees. There are a lot of other linked issues that operate similarly and it's a bit of a tragedy.
- 0x4d464d48 8y ago
  "A lot of the concern is essentially about the precedent it sets. If you start questioning the logic of criminalizing cannabis, what's next on the list?" Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It's ironic that for so many Americans the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices would be such a tough sell...
  - jrace 8y ago
    "It's ironic that for so many Americans the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices would be such a tough sell..." Good point, if you are not allowed to put something into your own body do you really have freedom?
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago
      It’s much like reproductive freedom. Someone gets a moral high horse that not everyone shares and decides that your life is not yours to control.
      - topmonk 8y ago
        Once there is a viable life form inside of you, it's no longer just about you controlling your life when you decide to kill it.
        htmk 8y ago
        Should a bacterial infection have the same rights? It's a perfectly viable life form.
        topmonk 8y ago
        There is no law against killing bacterial infections living outside of the human body, so it does have the same rights as it does if it lives inside the body. There are laws against killing human babies when they are living outside of a body. Why should it be so different the day before when they are in a woman's body vs the day after when they are outside?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
brianwawok 8y ago
> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. It is still illegal at the federal level. There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana. I cannot think of anything else that is illegal at the federal but legal at the state level, and has weird hand wavy aspects in front of it.
- BenjiWiebe 8y ago
  Just pointing out that the GP is referring to Canada, not the US.
  - 0x4d464d48 8y ago
    In that context no I meant California. But the commenter is right about it being illegal at the federal level... and as a Schedule I drug on par with Heroine no less but more dangerous than Hydromorphone (HA!).
- 0x4d464d48 8y ago
  "There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    There'd be no legal basis for that. Federal drug law trumps state ones if there's a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Federal laws can't be arbitrary, though - they need to fall under one of the enumerated federal powers. Problem is, ever since Wickard v. Filburn decision, all that the federal government needs to do is to add "... in interstate commerce" in the text of the law, and it is magically constitutional. The words themselves have practically no meaning - in Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing food for personal consumption is still "participating in interstate commerce", on the basis that they'd have to buy that food otherwise, and therefore affect market prices on it.
swebs 8y ago
>It's not perfect but far, far, far better than strict prohibition with draconian sentencing laws. I thought you couldn't even be fined if carrying only enough for personal use.
- jrace 8y ago
  You could....just most jurisdictions did not bother.
Noos 8y ago
Some people don't want a shop next to them. The stench is horrid, and the kind of people that loiter around them are the last people you want near your house. Legalizing a stupid and shitty practice because society doesn't want to enforce it doesn't make it any less stupid or shitty.
- fetus8 8y ago
  The shops don't create horrid stenches. The grow ops and processing facilities do create noxious odors, but the stores hardly produce an odor that can be smelled from the street, or even in the stores. What kind of people do you suppose loiter at these shops? From my experiences here in CO, no one loiters at these shops. The stores often have pretty tight security and attentive guards. You go in, do your business, and leave with product in hand. I would be willing to bet that the kind of people who visit these establishments is far more varied than you are able to comprehend.
  - apotheosis 8y ago
    Agree - I live in SF. A few months ago, after leaving my local dispensary, I was standing out front looking up directions. The dispensary security guard politely asked me to move along. I don't know where the OP is from, but around SF you actually can't loiter around the stores.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    When I lived in Denver I recall being far more worried about the characters outside the liquor store than the weed stores.
- denerio-a 8y ago
  Making a stupid and shitty comment because mods don’t remove stupid and shitty comments doesn’t make your stupid and shitty 1930s era blinkered, prejudiced, mean hearted, factually and objectively incorrect comment any less stupid or shit.
- denerio-a 8y ago
  How is this objectively terrible comment not flagged? Yet my response which used the same language and style was flagged in five minutes?
ficklepickle 8y ago
Almost all the storefronts have closed in Vancouver since "legalization", that's the big change I noticed.
- forkLding 8y ago
  Its because they were unlicensed and could be fined up to millions of dollars for unlicensed operations (although not arrested). Licenses are being handed out now though. https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1180771/evergreen-obtains-first-retail-cannabis-licence-vancouver https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1180771/evergreen-obtains-...
ziont 8y ago
tell me about it. I openly smoke marijuana in public places. Why? It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. I see uninformed parents scowling at me for blowing marijuana smoke away from them while they are smoking cigarettes infront of their kids. Anyways, if you see a guy smoking weed around Robson square, that's me.
- ams6110 8y ago
  > It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. Do you have a source to confirm that? I'd think it would be roughly similar: smoke of burning leaves.
  - ziont 8y ago
    you get tar but when you light up a tobacco it has all sorts of chemicals. you are not just burning tobacco leaf, you are burning dozens of chemicals they add to it. You can't even get high from second hand marijuana smoke outside. Hotboxing your car however, will get you high. Certainly better than being in a car with a tobacco enthusiast.
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    Tobacco causes cancer through Tobacco-specific nitrosamines generated during curing and burning. It’s not simply a matter of burning leaves.
    - barrow-rider 8y ago
      That is debatable; burning leaves or burning anything can mess you up with extended amounts of exposure. Firefighters have above-average rates of cancer, including lung cancer. This suggests that inhaling lots of smoke from ANYTHING on the regular isn't good for you. Example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/cancer-biggest-killer-america-s-firefighters-n813411 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/cancer-biggest-killer-...
      - stochastic_monk 8y ago
dragonwriter 8y ago
> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. Marijuana is illegal in the United States. There may not be state-level prohibition in some states, but that doesn't make it legal in those states, any more than the fact that individual states may not prohibit fraud against the US government makes such fraud legal in those states. The federal policy against enforcing the existing federal criminal prohibition of marijuana against medical use that complies with state law is an unusual complication, but the criminal prohibition still applies even in those cases (particularly, should that policy be lifted by Congress tomorrow, all the crimes that occurred while it was in place could be prosecuted—and criminal and/or civil forfeiture associated with them pursued—because neither the crime nor it's punishments were removed, so no ex post facto issues would exist.) And it's not clear what the boundaries of that policy are, and, more importantly, it's not clear that anyone but Congress itself would have standing or an available remedy should the executive branch act in a manner that is arguably outside of the bounds of the policy.

jaggederest 8y ago

A lot of the concern is essentially about the precedent it sets. If you start questioning the logic of criminalizing cannabis, what's next on the list? That's the fear driving a lot of the reactionary opposition to a lot of things these days, and I think especially in the tech industry we have to remember that a lot of people don't have our appetite for risk. Personally I think we as a society have demonstrated a considerable capacity for adaptation, so there's little to worry about, but my extended family certainly disagrees. There are a lot of other linked issues that operate similarly and it's a bit of a tragedy.

0x4d464d48 8y ago
"A lot of the concern is essentially about the precedent it sets. If you start questioning the logic of criminalizing cannabis, what's next on the list?" Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. It's ironic that for so many Americans the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices would be such a tough sell...
- jrace 8y ago
  "It's ironic that for so many Americans the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices would be such a tough sell..." Good point, if you are not allowed to put something into your own body do you really have freedom?
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    It’s much like reproductive freedom. Someone gets a moral high horse that not everyone shares and decides that your life is not yours to control.
    - topmonk 8y ago
      Once there is a viable life form inside of you, it's no longer just about you controlling your life when you decide to kill it.
      - htmk 8y ago
        Should a bacterial infection have the same rights? It's a perfectly viable life form.
        topmonk 8y ago
        There is no law against killing bacterial infections living outside of the human body, so it does have the same rights as it does if it lives inside the body. There are laws against killing human babies when they are living outside of a body. Why should it be so different the day before when they are in a woman's body vs the day after when they are outside?
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

brianwawok 8y ago

> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. It is still illegal at the federal level. There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana. I cannot think of anything else that is illegal at the federal but legal at the state level, and has weird hand wavy aspects in front of it.

BenjiWiebe 8y ago
Just pointing out that the GP is referring to Canada, not the US.
- 0x4d464d48 8y ago
  In that context no I meant California. But the commenter is right about it being illegal at the federal level... and as a Schedule I drug on par with Heroine no less but more dangerous than Hydromorphone (HA!).
0x4d464d48 8y ago
"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  There'd be no legal basis for that. Federal drug law trumps state ones if there's a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Federal laws can't be arbitrary, though - they need to fall under one of the enumerated federal powers. Problem is, ever since Wickard v. Filburn decision, all that the federal government needs to do is to add "... in interstate commerce" in the text of the law, and it is magically constitutional. The words themselves have practically no meaning - in Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing food for personal consumption is still "participating in interstate commerce", on the basis that they'd have to buy that food otherwise, and therefore affect market prices on it.

swebs 8y ago

>It's not perfect but far, far, far better than strict prohibition with draconian sentencing laws. I thought you couldn't even be fined if carrying only enough for personal use.

jrace 8y ago
You could....just most jurisdictions did not bother.

Noos 8y ago

Some people don't want a shop next to them. The stench is horrid, and the kind of people that loiter around them are the last people you want near your house. Legalizing a stupid and shitty practice because society doesn't want to enforce it doesn't make it any less stupid or shitty.

fetus8 8y ago
The shops don't create horrid stenches. The grow ops and processing facilities do create noxious odors, but the stores hardly produce an odor that can be smelled from the street, or even in the stores. What kind of people do you suppose loiter at these shops? From my experiences here in CO, no one loiters at these shops. The stores often have pretty tight security and attentive guards. You go in, do your business, and leave with product in hand. I would be willing to bet that the kind of people who visit these establishments is far more varied than you are able to comprehend.
- apotheosis 8y ago
  Agree - I live in SF. A few months ago, after leaving my local dispensary, I was standing out front looking up directions. The dispensary security guard politely asked me to move along. I don't know where the OP is from, but around SF you actually can't loiter around the stores.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  When I lived in Denver I recall being far more worried about the characters outside the liquor store than the weed stores.
denerio-a 8y ago
Making a stupid and shitty comment because mods don’t remove stupid and shitty comments doesn’t make your stupid and shitty 1930s era blinkered, prejudiced, mean hearted, factually and objectively incorrect comment any less stupid or shit.
denerio-a 8y ago
How is this objectively terrible comment not flagged? Yet my response which used the same language and style was flagged in five minutes?

ficklepickle 8y ago

Almost all the storefronts have closed in Vancouver since "legalization", that's the big change I noticed.

forkLding 8y ago
Its because they were unlicensed and could be fined up to millions of dollars for unlicensed operations (although not arrested). Licenses are being handed out now though. https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1180771/evergreen-obtains-first-retail-cannabis-licence-vancouver https://www.straight.com/cannabis/1180771/evergreen-obtains-...

ziont 8y ago

tell me about it. I openly smoke marijuana in public places. Why? It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. I see uninformed parents scowling at me for blowing marijuana smoke away from them while they are smoking cigarettes infront of their kids. Anyways, if you see a guy smoking weed around Robson square, that's me.

ams6110 8y ago
> It's a LOT LESS HARMFUL THAN SECOND HAND TOBACCO. Do you have a source to confirm that? I'd think it would be roughly similar: smoke of burning leaves.
- ziont 8y ago
  you get tar but when you light up a tobacco it has all sorts of chemicals. you are not just burning tobacco leaf, you are burning dozens of chemicals they add to it. You can't even get high from second hand marijuana smoke outside. Hotboxing your car however, will get you high. Certainly better than being in a car with a tobacco enthusiast.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  Tobacco causes cancer through Tobacco-specific nitrosamines generated during curing and burning. It’s not simply a matter of burning leaves.
  - barrow-rider 8y ago
    That is debatable; burning leaves or burning anything can mess you up with extended amounts of exposure. Firefighters have above-average rates of cancer, including lung cancer. This suggests that inhaling lots of smoke from ANYTHING on the regular isn't good for you. Example: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/cancer-biggest-killer-america-s-firefighters-n813411 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/cancer-biggest-killer-...
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. Marijuana is illegal in the United States. There may not be state-level prohibition in some states, but that doesn't make it legal in those states, any more than the fact that individual states may not prohibit fraud against the US government makes such fraud legal in those states. The federal policy against enforcing the existing federal criminal prohibition of marijuana against medical use that complies with state law is an unusual complication, but the criminal prohibition still applies even in those cases (particularly, should that policy be lifted by Congress tomorrow, all the crimes that occurred while it was in place could be prosecuted—and criminal and/or civil forfeiture associated with them pursued—because neither the crime nor it's punishments were removed, so no ex post facto issues would exist.) And it's not clear what the boundaries of that policy are, and, more importantly, it's not clear that anyone but Congress itself would have standing or an available remedy should the executive branch act in a manner that is arguably outside of the bounds of the policy.