5 ms·

Between prohibition and legalization, there is the middle ground called "deciminalization" : you can't open a brick and mortar store selling grass, create a wee

by IMTDb 8y ago

Between prohibition and legalization, there is the middle ground called "deciminalization" : you can't open a brick and mortar store selling grass, create a weed delivery app, or openliy smoke in public. But if you get caught smoking or just having weed on you, you just a small/medium fine and no jail time, and no criminal record. This solves the issue of destroying lives for minor offences while still limiting consumption of a notoriously nefarious product.

castis 8y ago
Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others? The article points out that we don’t know marijuana “doesn’t negatively affect others.”
- Jhndb 8y ago
  So that others don't negatively affect themselves (devils advocate)
- michjedi 8y ago
  How does it not affect others? 1. Vapours/Smoke affects those around you 2. Your behaviour change due to the drug affects those around you 3. Your behaviour change due to the need for the drug affects those around you
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - castis 8y ago
    All of those straw men are negated by the fact that you don't know me.
- IMTDb 8y ago
  It's interesting to see that this argument always comes up when we talk about weed but everyone seems to agree that fines for not putting on a helmet on your bike are OK. Yet in both case the only harm you would be inflicting is on yourself (or so you think). Truth is: if you get worse because of your weed abuse, you won't be the only one impacted by this. At a micro level, your family/friends/doctors will spend time/money/energy helping you out if you end up needing it. That's not fun. At a macro level this becomes a public health problem when we have to account for all the consequences it generates int terms of life expectancy, QOL for elders, treatments, care centers, hospitals, .... All those institution/studies/process we have to put in place is time not spent doing something else. Just like peeing on the street is not really going to harm anyone, but it makes everyone life around you a tiny little bit less enjoyable. We kindly ask you not to do it. If you get caught doing it you get a slap on the wrist (and nothing more). You are benefiting every day from the hundreds of little things we don't do so the community can work as a whole. And you respect 99.9% of those rules without even thinking about it because you agree with those. This is just another one you happen to not agree with. I can understand why, but there I believe it's OK for society to find the best possible way to limit MJ usage without destroying lives.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed.
    - 8y ago
- stef25 8y ago
  It's very hard to draw a line between things that do and don't harm others. We should run an experiment among your friends and family, co-workers, measure any effects on your health and associated costs covered by the tax payer etc. Don't get me wrong, I smoked pot daily more than half of my life. I know I'm a better person without it and after quitting my long term girlfriend said the changes were incredible. That's not an argument for criminalising this plant, but the argument really isn't as simple as a one-liner.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> [Fines] solves the issue of destroying lives for minor offences Most Americans live pay check to pay check [1]. Fines can also destroy lives. If we find evidence of harm, a better solution would be taxation, which evenly spreads the financial penalty (think of it like pre-fining), and limits orn marketing. (This is what we did with tobacco.) [1] https://www.wisn.com/article/nearly-80-percent-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/13304542 https://www.wisn.com/article/nearly-80-percent-of-americans-...
Johnny555 8y ago
But it enables an entirely unregulated (and presumably illegal) industry to fulfill demand, and people will still be arrested for working in that industry. If society is going to allow people to smoke it legally, it ought to at least provide enough regulation to give people a way to know that what they are smoking is what they think it is. Not everyone is willing/able to grow their own.
yboris 8y ago
A fantastic book on this (plus it's short): Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak - a superbly-written argument for decriminalizing all drugs. https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...

by IMTDb 8y ago

castis 8y ago

Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others?

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Why is it acceptable that the state gets to penalize me for something I'm doing that doesn't negatively affect others? The article points out that we don’t know marijuana “doesn’t negatively affect others.”
Jhndb 8y ago
So that others don't negatively affect themselves (devils advocate)
michjedi 8y ago
How does it not affect others? 1. Vapours/Smoke affects those around you 2. Your behaviour change due to the drug affects those around you 3. Your behaviour change due to the need for the drug affects those around you
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- castis 8y ago
  All of those straw men are negated by the fact that you don't know me.
IMTDb 8y ago
It's interesting to see that this argument always comes up when we talk about weed but everyone seems to agree that fines for not putting on a helmet on your bike are OK. Yet in both case the only harm you would be inflicting is on yourself (or so you think). Truth is: if you get worse because of your weed abuse, you won't be the only one impacted by this. At a micro level, your family/friends/doctors will spend time/money/energy helping you out if you end up needing it. That's not fun. At a macro level this becomes a public health problem when we have to account for all the consequences it generates int terms of life expectancy, QOL for elders, treatments, care centers, hospitals, .... All those institution/studies/process we have to put in place is time not spent doing something else. Just like peeing on the street is not really going to harm anyone, but it makes everyone life around you a tiny little bit less enjoyable. We kindly ask you not to do it. If you get caught doing it you get a slap on the wrist (and nothing more). You are benefiting every day from the hundreds of little things we don't do so the community can work as a whole. And you respect 99.9% of those rules without even thinking about it because you agree with those. This is just another one you happen to not agree with. I can understand why, but there I believe it's OK for society to find the best possible way to limit MJ usage without destroying lives.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere. Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make? If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed.
  - 8y ago
stef25 8y ago
It's very hard to draw a line between things that do and don't harm others. We should run an experiment among your friends and family, co-workers, measure any effects on your health and associated costs covered by the tax payer etc. Don't get me wrong, I smoked pot daily more than half of my life. I know I'm a better person without it and after quitting my long term girlfriend said the changes were incredible. That's not an argument for criminalising this plant, but the argument really isn't as simple as a one-liner.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> [Fines] solves the issue of destroying lives for minor offences Most Americans live pay check to pay check [1]. Fines can also destroy lives. If we find evidence of harm, a better solution would be taxation, which evenly spreads the financial penalty (think of it like pre-fining), and limits orn marketing. (This is what we did with tobacco.) [1] https://www.wisn.com/article/nearly-80-percent-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/13304542 https://www.wisn.com/article/nearly-80-percent-of-americans-...

Johnny555 8y ago

But it enables an entirely unregulated (and presumably illegal) industry to fulfill demand, and people will still be arrested for working in that industry. If society is going to allow people to smoke it legally, it ought to at least provide enough regulation to give people a way to know that what they are smoking is what they think it is. Not everyone is willing/able to grow their own.

yboris 8y ago

A fantastic book on this (plus it's short): Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak - a superbly-written argument for decriminalizing all drugs. https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practical-Ethics/dp/1859843204 https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...