7 ms·

> I smoked exceedingly rarely before legalization (3 times in my entire life) and now I smoke often. You are the boogeyman to the people who oppose legalisatio

by DKnoll 7y ago

> I smoked exceedingly rarely before legalization (3 times in my entire life) and now I smoke often. You are the boogeyman to the people who oppose legalisation. One of the rare people who didn't smoke simply to obey the law and are now getting stoned because it's legal. :P I think the people who rarely smoked are the most happy, because they are not worried about a minor price increase but also appreciate the convenience and legal acceptance. I am personally happy with legalisation and, as someone who no longer smokes but realises the relative lack of harm from consuming cannabis (especially as compared to alcohol), think it is the morally right thing to do. Despite my own beliefs, public opposition to the rollout is still significant and definitely worth mentioning especially in a Reuters article that will be propagated everywhere.

DanBC 7y ago
> One of the rare people We have no idea of the prevalance of this kind of person. There's no research. (I am in favour of legalisation.)
- DKnoll 7y ago
  It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal, even though getting charged for personal amounts of cannabis in the GTA was about as common as being struck by lightning. That said I applaud them. That's a very respectable level of restraint and community-mindedness (I swear that's a word).
  - sjwright 7y ago
    The statistical reality isn’t operational for many people. Many people would not want to even begin to look for an underground supplier let alone deal with one. (I am in favour of legalisation.)
    - DKnoll 7y ago
      I see you appreciate the weasel word 'many' as much as I do. It's very handy to avoid having to cite every statement (lol). You're totally right that those people exist and there are 'many' of them. I'm going off conversations that have occurred and caused certain cities, especially in the Peel and Halton regions, to ban stores. Honestly the real number of people who feel a type of way about legalisation doesn't even matter that much, especially when decisions like this are up to already elected representatives and not handled by referendum. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and this is a fundamental issue with the implementation of democracy in the west. For issues that most people don't consider a hill to die on (or, at least, both sides) elected representatives don't end up voting in line with actual public opinion. A prime example of this fact is that legalization only happened in 2018 and not 20 years earlier.
    - kzcqt 7y ago
      I would've liked to try some drugs, weed included, but I haven't because I don't have contacts and I don't want to deal with some lowlife who will probably scam me. If they made weed legal I would probably give it a spin, and maybe even get hooked, much to my own loss since I, as many other people, lack self-control. (I am against legalisation; I don't live in Canada.)
      - alanpetrel 7y ago
        I wouldn’t call dealers lowlifes, they provide a valuable community service in more fascist countries like the U.K.
      - whenchamenia 7y ago
        Your lack of self control should never usurp my freedom.
      - ZeroFries 7y ago
        Would you also vote to ban fast food, video games, social media, and Netflix?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal Yep, I agree. But we need to talk not just about what happens today, but what happens in the future. If cannabis is normalised and legally available will that increase the use of cannabis?
    - DKnoll 7y ago
      >If cannabis is normalised and legally available will that increase the use of cannabis? I think use of cannabis will increase in Canada after legalisation and I doubt anybody will disagree or project a decrease. I think a bigger question is whether public opinion will continue to trend favourably in light of current medical knowledge which seems to think that cannabis causes less harm than alcohol thus making it a better way to waste time and/or ease general existential angst on the weekends. While I don't think more people getting stoned is necessarily 'win' for Canadian society, I think if it diverts them from other more harmful forms of impairment (alcohol or 'hard' drugs) it probably is.
  - dagw 7y ago
    It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal That was me. Although not because I was afraid of getting caught, but simply because the effort and logistics of attempting to get ahold of a consistent supply of quality weed without getting ripped off was not worth it.
  - red75prime 7y ago
    > It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal For me it is completely easy to believe. Cannabis is not addictive enough for me to go to the trouble of getting it illegally.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  I wonder how much data there is from countries where it has been legal for a long time, like the Netherlands. When I grew up it was as normal as normal smoking and drinking. Mushrooms were(and are, but they banned some of them I think) also legal but that was not very normal to use, at least not in my circles. All my friends and many of their parents smoked a spliff or 2 in the weekend. Same as they drank some beers. But only the illegal stuff (at that time xtc, speed, heroine and cocaine) was used to excesses that caused issues. I don't think they ever legalized those, but non-dealers were not arrested and the police checked the quality of drugs at parties to filter out bad stuff; when that started happening, the abuse went down too. My crazy house friends (usually converts from metal to house at the beginning of the 90s) went from dangerous abuse to more controlled and moderate use now that it was 'normal'. So yes, that's all anecdotal, but at least in my circles I have seen over the past 30 years that (semi)legalizing indeed helps a lot; because there is a 40-50 year trackrecord in countries like NL, there must be someone who researched it and has data about the actual effects of legalization and 'gedoog' (semi-legalization) strategies?
  - the-dude 7y ago
    May I suggest 'non-enforcement' as a better translation of 'gedogen'?
    - _0ffh 7y ago
      Maybe "tolerated", that's what the analouge Word in German means.
    - dmurray 7y ago
      "Decriminalisation" is the usual term in English for the Netherlands legal policy on cannabis.
  - piva00 7y ago
    Toleration/decriminalisation and harm reduction policies are really important, to give you a parallel: look here at Sweden [0] that despite being really socially progressive in regards to gender and social equality still has some of the most strict drug policies in the developed world. It's not only illegal to trade drugs but also to consume them, if you are caught, for example, during a raid on a rave by the police and they test you for drugs you will get fined and can go to court for it (being imprisoned isn't happening though). You will still have a record for about 5 years even though you had no drugs in your possession. Also, needle exchange programs are fucked up as there is not national policy, it's left to the kommuner and so these programs vary wildly between cities, addicts die because of this paralysis of the system. Portugal is the most common example of how harm reduction policies help to decrease mortality and usage, a better informed population where drugs aren't taboo makes their usage be lower and more responsible. I have some Dutch friends, most don't really smoke weed as often, usually on a special occasion. Harder drugs usage is also more responsible, most of them test their drugs before consuming, don't overdo it. Openness and information invites responsibility. [0] https://i.imgur.com/bqfprnj.png https://i.imgur.com/bqfprnj.png
hrktb 7y ago
To your first point, I am really curious to see what we will discover once it is widely available. Up until now it was mostly conjectures, and very biased observations only (not only because of preconceptions, but also because the smoking population was so fringe). Even if it ends up there’s tons of unpredicted critically bad side effects, at least we’ll be out of the boogyeman phase and will have solid evidence of what’s good and wvat’s bad.
throwaway287391 7y ago
> You are the boogeyman to the people who oppose legalisation. One of the rare people who didn't smoke simply to obey the law and are now getting stoned because it's legal. :P As a pre- and post-legalization smoker, I always thought this was a naive view. Having to deal with a sketchy flaky street dealer (not to mention finding one to begin with) is absolutely going to turn a lot of people off of smoking. And speaking from experience, waiting on an empty street corner for 20-30 minutes for your dealer to show up (because he's always late) gives you a lot of time to introspect and question your choices... It is really nothing like walking into a clean retail store with regular business hours, display cases, and pretty young cashiers. The street dealer situation makes you feel like a lowlife piece of shit who has a lot of growing up to do; the legal retail situation makes you feel like a yuppie walking into an Apple Store. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this new option led to 2 or 3 times as many people smoking. And to me, that's completely fine (really, good for me since it makes it more socially acceptable). I think the smokers who believed that legalization didn't offer a more appealing purchasing option for a ton of people must be the 24/7 stoners who only have other 24/7 stoners as friends and can't imagine not having immediate access to weed.

by DKnoll 7y ago

DanBC 7y ago

> One of the rare people We have no idea of the prevalance of this kind of person. There's no research. (I am in favour of legalisation.)

DKnoll 7y ago
It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal, even though getting charged for personal amounts of cannabis in the GTA was about as common as being struck by lightning. That said I applaud them. That's a very respectable level of restraint and community-mindedness (I swear that's a word).
- sjwright 7y ago
  The statistical reality isn’t operational for many people. Many people would not want to even begin to look for an underground supplier let alone deal with one. (I am in favour of legalisation.)
  - DKnoll 7y ago
    I see you appreciate the weasel word 'many' as much as I do. It's very handy to avoid having to cite every statement (lol). You're totally right that those people exist and there are 'many' of them. I'm going off conversations that have occurred and caused certain cities, especially in the Peel and Halton regions, to ban stores. Honestly the real number of people who feel a type of way about legalisation doesn't even matter that much, especially when decisions like this are up to already elected representatives and not handled by referendum. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and this is a fundamental issue with the implementation of democracy in the west. For issues that most people don't consider a hill to die on (or, at least, both sides) elected representatives don't end up voting in line with actual public opinion. A prime example of this fact is that legalization only happened in 2018 and not 20 years earlier.
  - kzcqt 7y ago
    I would've liked to try some drugs, weed included, but I haven't because I don't have contacts and I don't want to deal with some lowlife who will probably scam me. If they made weed legal I would probably give it a spin, and maybe even get hooked, much to my own loss since I, as many other people, lack self-control. (I am against legalisation; I don't live in Canada.)
    - alanpetrel 7y ago
      I wouldn’t call dealers lowlifes, they provide a valuable community service in more fascist countries like the U.K.
    - whenchamenia 7y ago
      Your lack of self control should never usurp my freedom.
    - ZeroFries 7y ago
      Would you also vote to ban fast food, video games, social media, and Netflix?
- DanBC 7y ago
  > It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal Yep, I agree. But we need to talk not just about what happens today, but what happens in the future. If cannabis is normalised and legally available will that increase the use of cannabis?
  - DKnoll 7y ago
    >If cannabis is normalised and legally available will that increase the use of cannabis? I think use of cannabis will increase in Canada after legalisation and I doubt anybody will disagree or project a decrease. I think a bigger question is whether public opinion will continue to trend favourably in light of current medical knowledge which seems to think that cannabis causes less harm than alcohol thus making it a better way to waste time and/or ease general existential angst on the weekends. While I don't think more people getting stoned is necessarily 'win' for Canadian society, I think if it diverts them from other more harmful forms of impairment (alcohol or 'hard' drugs) it probably is.
- dagw 7y ago
  It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal That was me. Although not because I was afraid of getting caught, but simply because the effort and logistics of attempting to get ahold of a consistent supply of quality weed without getting ripped off was not worth it.
- red75prime 7y ago
  > It's honestly hard to believe there were people who didn't smoke simply because it was illegal For me it is completely easy to believe. Cannabis is not addictive enough for me to go to the trouble of getting it illegally.
tluyben2 7y ago
I wonder how much data there is from countries where it has been legal for a long time, like the Netherlands. When I grew up it was as normal as normal smoking and drinking. Mushrooms were(and are, but they banned some of them I think) also legal but that was not very normal to use, at least not in my circles. All my friends and many of their parents smoked a spliff or 2 in the weekend. Same as they drank some beers. But only the illegal stuff (at that time xtc, speed, heroine and cocaine) was used to excesses that caused issues. I don't think they ever legalized those, but non-dealers were not arrested and the police checked the quality of drugs at parties to filter out bad stuff; when that started happening, the abuse went down too. My crazy house friends (usually converts from metal to house at the beginning of the 90s) went from dangerous abuse to more controlled and moderate use now that it was 'normal'. So yes, that's all anecdotal, but at least in my circles I have seen over the past 30 years that (semi)legalizing indeed helps a lot; because there is a 40-50 year trackrecord in countries like NL, there must be someone who researched it and has data about the actual effects of legalization and 'gedoog' (semi-legalization) strategies?
- the-dude 7y ago
  May I suggest 'non-enforcement' as a better translation of 'gedogen'?
  - _0ffh 7y ago
    Maybe "tolerated", that's what the analouge Word in German means.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    "Decriminalisation" is the usual term in English for the Netherlands legal policy on cannabis.
- piva00 7y ago
  Toleration/decriminalisation and harm reduction policies are really important, to give you a parallel: look here at Sweden [0] that despite being really socially progressive in regards to gender and social equality still has some of the most strict drug policies in the developed world. It's not only illegal to trade drugs but also to consume them, if you are caught, for example, during a raid on a rave by the police and they test you for drugs you will get fined and can go to court for it (being imprisoned isn't happening though). You will still have a record for about 5 years even though you had no drugs in your possession. Also, needle exchange programs are fucked up as there is not national policy, it's left to the kommuner and so these programs vary wildly between cities, addicts die because of this paralysis of the system. Portugal is the most common example of how harm reduction policies help to decrease mortality and usage, a better informed population where drugs aren't taboo makes their usage be lower and more responsible. I have some Dutch friends, most don't really smoke weed as often, usually on a special occasion. Harder drugs usage is also more responsible, most of them test their drugs before consuming, don't overdo it. Openness and information invites responsibility. [0] https://i.imgur.com/bqfprnj.png https://i.imgur.com/bqfprnj.png

hrktb 7y ago

To your first point, I am really curious to see what we will discover once it is widely available. Up until now it was mostly conjectures, and very biased observations only (not only because of preconceptions, but also because the smoking population was so fringe). Even if it ends up there’s tons of unpredicted critically bad side effects, at least we’ll be out of the boogyeman phase and will have solid evidence of what’s good and wvat’s bad.

throwaway287391 7y ago

> You are the boogeyman to the people who oppose legalisation. One of the rare people who didn't smoke simply to obey the law and are now getting stoned because it's legal. :P As a pre- and post-legalization smoker, I always thought this was a naive view. Having to deal with a sketchy flaky street dealer (not to mention finding one to begin with) is absolutely going to turn a lot of people off of smoking. And speaking from experience, waiting on an empty street corner for 20-30 minutes for your dealer to show up (because he's always late) gives you a lot of time to introspect and question your choices... It is really nothing like walking into a clean retail store with regular business hours, display cases, and pretty young cashiers. The street dealer situation makes you feel like a lowlife piece of shit who has a lot of growing up to do; the legal retail situation makes you feel like a yuppie walking into an Apple Store. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this new option led to 2 or 3 times as many people smoking. And to me, that's completely fine (really, good for me since it makes it more socially acceptable). I think the smokers who believed that legalization didn't offer a more appealing purchasing option for a ton of people must be the 24/7 stoners who only have other 24/7 stoners as friends and can't imagine not having immediate access to weed.