7 ms·

Surgeon general: No 'value' to locking people up over marijuana use

68 points by DocFeind 5y ago

phnofive 5y ago
The US has no federal laws AFAIK regarding use, only possession, which itself was reduced to a misdemeanor ages ago. Hopefully, the Congress will take a leaf out of the Alaskan legislature's book and simply stay out of its citizens' homes.
- t-writescode 5y ago
  No. Hopefully Congress will roll back its decision and make it fully legal. That way: * it's legal to grow * legal to sell * legal to sell across state borders * possible to get a bank account used in its financial transaction * we can start to undo the damages to 10s of millions who have experienced by either themselves, or their loved ones, being thrown into the prison system.
- throwaway6734 5y ago
  Marijuana use essentially bars a person from working in the federal government or do any associated contractors
throwaway81523 5y ago
The value was explained back in the Nixon era, and it was a BAD value: " “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”" https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...
- m_mueller 5y ago
  as a native German speaker it really stands out to me that his name translates to “honest man”...
- etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
  Doesn’t explain why most of Asia is even harsher and more restrictive than the USA.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    The USA does export its drug policy stance, and per the Nixon policies, it's a win for any government to have those tools of oppression on tap for when needed.
    - etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
      I think a simpler explanation is that the general public in a country such as Japan deeply hates drug use.
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        except booze, the worst drug. vocational drinking is a cultural phenomenon. The deal is lack of education, and exposure. The west is a lot further along on the pathway to legalization. I do believe that when the day comes, usage will be similar to in the west under legalization. We are all humans after all.
        bluefirebrand 5y ago
        > except booze, the worst drug. Look, people are coming around to the idea that alcohol is really bad for us despite it being embedded in our social norms. Let's not go getting carried away calling it "the worst drug". That's absurd to an extreme.
        5y ago
tilolebo 5y ago
Curious what's the opinion of the HN community on decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. It seems accepted as an inevitable progress. But seeing the damage alcohol and tobacco does to society, I wonder what good it will bring, except from an economic PoV.
- president 5y ago
  Allowing drugs and other vices for the sake of economic prosperity is sad and goes against progress for humanity. I live next door to someone that smokes non-stop everyday and the second-hand smoke pisses me off to no end.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
    "Something irritates me so I want the irritant taken away and locked in a cage". Your vision of the world is clouded by your own hate. As you are someone who conflates a plant with 'drugs', I strongly recommend you spend some time to understand the issues, understand the really nasty history behind prohibition. Stop and think about how your attitude is trapping humanity in a box. Live a little. Be open to change. Understand others perspective.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      All the same, they should not be subjected to the smell of smoke from their neighbors house.
      - echlebek 5y ago
        Would you stop BBQing if your neighbour complained about it?
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        That's an interesting question. If someone had a smoker running all day, everyday, and it was an annoyance to neighbors - yes, I think there should be recourse. One person shouldn't be allowed to harm other people's enjoyment of their property.
president 5y ago
It's not so much as punishing people for weed but punishing them for knowingly breaking the law right? Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.
- tenebrisalietum 5y ago
  The problem is when law isn't applied consistently, or when phenomena such as one's net worth making a difference in level of justice received is observed, then that's a strong message to those paying attention that there isn't value in following the rule of law, but rather value in knowing people in the right places or getting as much money as you can.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Just like there is value in civil disobedience. I think it is a faulty assumption that the value of following the law is not understood by those purposefully breaking it.
- Karsteski 5y ago
  At some point, black people in US were punished for drinking from the wrong water fountains. Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.
- svrourke 5y ago
  This seems like a bit of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Law does not make something valid good or proper and to follow laws for the sake of them being laws is missing the point of laws no? Do you actually value the purpose of the law or is it just a boolean true or false if something is illegal its bad and wrong because it's illegal? How valuable to society are people who pretend not to be gay when it's illegal? How much value was there in keeping black people out of the same restaurants as white people? What value do you perceive society gains by locking people up for smoking a plant that makes you laugh? On the contrary does it not remove value from society to stringently pursue punitive measures against something like being in possession of a gram of cannabis while higher crimes often face far less significant (relatively) consequences?
anm89 5y ago
Wow, how brave of them to come out 20 years after this was consensus amongst health professionals.
- Karsteski 5y ago
  Better now than never. It saddens me that the impact of criminalizing drug usage so heavily in every country will never truly be appreciated. So many lives and families ruined...
LatteLazy 5y ago
I'm just old enough to remember when the surgeon general said masterbation was OK and drug policy should be changed and got sacked under Clinton. Let's hope it works better this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders
- k12sosse 5y ago
  The idea of pro-masturbation comment to cause her to "lose the support of the (Clinton) Whitehouse" is pretty damn hilarious. As a non-American, she was news to me. Thanks for sharing.
john579 5y ago
Can't argue with that. Guess we'll have to just shoot them instead. "Would you like a blindfold with that reefer?"
runawaybottle 5y ago
So, everyone that wasted their life in prison because of zero tolerance weed busts, we giving them some money or what?
hajile 5y ago
Locking people up over marijuana may be stupid, but it’s not medical. I didn’t elect him and he needs to keep his non-medical opinions separate from his job. From global warming to the pandemic, medical experts and scientists taking political sides has lead to disinformation, hesitancy to do what should be done, stonewalling or even outright censorship of the facts.
- ayane_m 5y ago
  Arguably, it is medical. Substance use disorders, of which cannabis can be an example, are medical disorders which are better treated medically than with punitive justice.
- bagacrap 5y ago
  Who should we ask then, the chief of police? Clearly the basis for banning drugs is the harm they may cause to the health of both their users and others. A medical expert's opinion is relevant in assessing harm. It's not like he weighed in on net neutrality.

68 points by DocFeind 5y ago

The US has no federal laws AFAIK regarding use, only possession, which itself was reduced to a misdemeanor ages ago. Hopefully, the Congress will take a leaf out of the Alaskan legislature's book and simply stay out of its citizens' homes.

t-writescode 5y ago
No. Hopefully Congress will roll back its decision and make it fully legal. That way: * it's legal to grow * legal to sell * legal to sell across state borders * possible to get a bank account used in its financial transaction * we can start to undo the damages to 10s of millions who have experienced by either themselves, or their loved ones, being thrown into the prison system.
throwaway6734 5y ago
Marijuana use essentially bars a person from working in the federal government or do any associated contractors

throwaway81523 5y ago

The value was explained back in the Nixon era, and it was a BAD value: " “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”" https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

m_mueller 5y ago
as a native German speaker it really stands out to me that his name translates to “honest man”...
etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
Doesn’t explain why most of Asia is even harsher and more restrictive than the USA.
- pstuart 5y ago
  The USA does export its drug policy stance, and per the Nixon policies, it's a win for any government to have those tools of oppression on tap for when needed.
  - etaioinshrdlu 5y ago
    I think a simpler explanation is that the general public in a country such as Japan deeply hates drug use.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      except booze, the worst drug. vocational drinking is a cultural phenomenon. The deal is lack of education, and exposure. The west is a lot further along on the pathway to legalization. I do believe that when the day comes, usage will be similar to in the west under legalization. We are all humans after all.
      - bluefirebrand 5y ago
        > except booze, the worst drug. Look, people are coming around to the idea that alcohol is really bad for us despite it being embedded in our social norms. Let's not go getting carried away calling it "the worst drug". That's absurd to an extreme.
        5y ago

tilolebo 5y ago

Curious what's the opinion of the HN community on decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. It seems accepted as an inevitable progress. But seeing the damage alcohol and tobacco does to society, I wonder what good it will bring, except from an economic PoV.

president 5y ago
Allowing drugs and other vices for the sake of economic prosperity is sad and goes against progress for humanity. I live next door to someone that smokes non-stop everyday and the second-hand smoke pisses me off to no end.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  "Something irritates me so I want the irritant taken away and locked in a cage". Your vision of the world is clouded by your own hate. As you are someone who conflates a plant with 'drugs', I strongly recommend you spend some time to understand the issues, understand the really nasty history behind prohibition. Stop and think about how your attitude is trapping humanity in a box. Live a little. Be open to change. Understand others perspective.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    All the same, they should not be subjected to the smell of smoke from their neighbors house.
    - echlebek 5y ago
      Would you stop BBQing if your neighbour complained about it?
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        That's an interesting question. If someone had a smoker running all day, everyday, and it was an annoyance to neighbors - yes, I think there should be recourse. One person shouldn't be allowed to harm other people's enjoyment of their property.

president 5y ago

It's not so much as punishing people for weed but punishing them for knowingly breaking the law right? Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.

tenebrisalietum 5y ago
The problem is when law isn't applied consistently, or when phenomena such as one's net worth making a difference in level of justice received is observed, then that's a strong message to those paying attention that there isn't value in following the rule of law, but rather value in knowing people in the right places or getting as much money as you can.
shawnz 5y ago
Just like there is value in civil disobedience. I think it is a faulty assumption that the value of following the law is not understood by those purposefully breaking it.
Karsteski 5y ago
At some point, black people in US were punished for drinking from the wrong water fountains. Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.
svrourke 5y ago
This seems like a bit of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Law does not make something valid good or proper and to follow laws for the sake of them being laws is missing the point of laws no? Do you actually value the purpose of the law or is it just a boolean true or false if something is illegal its bad and wrong because it's illegal? How valuable to society are people who pretend not to be gay when it's illegal? How much value was there in keeping black people out of the same restaurants as white people? What value do you perceive society gains by locking people up for smoking a plant that makes you laugh? On the contrary does it not remove value from society to stringently pursue punitive measures against something like being in possession of a gram of cannabis while higher crimes often face far less significant (relatively) consequences?

anm89 5y ago

Wow, how brave of them to come out 20 years after this was consensus amongst health professionals.

Karsteski 5y ago
Better now than never. It saddens me that the impact of criminalizing drug usage so heavily in every country will never truly be appreciated. So many lives and families ruined...

LatteLazy 5y ago

I'm just old enough to remember when the surgeon general said masterbation was OK and drug policy should be changed and got sacked under Clinton. Let's hope it works better this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

k12sosse 5y ago
The idea of pro-masturbation comment to cause her to "lose the support of the (Clinton) Whitehouse" is pretty damn hilarious. As a non-American, she was news to me. Thanks for sharing.

john579 5y ago

Can't argue with that. Guess we'll have to just shoot them instead. "Would you like a blindfold with that reefer?"

runawaybottle 5y ago

So, everyone that wasted their life in prison because of zero tolerance weed busts, we giving them some money or what?

hajile 5y ago

Locking people up over marijuana may be stupid, but it’s not medical. I didn’t elect him and he needs to keep his non-medical opinions separate from his job. From global warming to the pandemic, medical experts and scientists taking political sides has lead to disinformation, hesitancy to do what should be done, stonewalling or even outright censorship of the facts.

ayane_m 5y ago
Arguably, it is medical. Substance use disorders, of which cannabis can be an example, are medical disorders which are better treated medically than with punitive justice.
bagacrap 5y ago
Who should we ask then, the chief of police? Clearly the basis for banning drugs is the harm they may cause to the health of both their users and others. A medical expert's opinion is relevant in assessing harm. It's not like he weighed in on net neutrality.