4 ms·

Drug criminalization is arbitrary and a documented tool of political oppression, so decriminalization is actually the opposite of your claim. Non-addictive subs

Drug criminalization is arbitrary and a documented tool of political oppression, so decriminalization is actually the opposite of your claim. Non-addictive substances like cannabis and psilocybin have put a lot of people in jail where their criminal record can be used to deny them certain rights for the rest of their lives. By arbitrary I mean why are chemically addictive substances like tobacco and caffeine legal? Or why is alcohol legal when it's a common aide in substance abuse? Addictiveness and abuseability are not indicators of legality. But historians who have looked into the motivations behind criminalization of cannabis find politically motivated individuals such as Harry Anslinger who weaponized a war on drugs as part of an anti-immigrant and racist agenda.

saiya-jin 5y ago
Parent is clearly clueless on this topic (and history of Nixon vs hippies/mexicans) or trolling, but a minor distinction - weed is definitely addictive, but comparatively mildly. Probably the second mildest from all those prohibited subtances, first being shrooms/acid which actually works less the more often you use it to the point of not feeling anything if you would dose daily (or so the reports said when I was reading on it, never tested it). Tobacco or alcohol create absolutely devastating addiction in comparison, that most people struggle to shed during their remaining lives (and more often than not fail with corresponding consequences).
- somehnacct3757 5y ago
  Taxonomic aside: I was using addictive only in the sense of chemically addictive. I've seen substance abuse or substance dependence being used rather than overloading addiction to capture those behaviors. Is this in alignment with what you're saying? Or do you mean cannabis is chemically addictive in some way? I genuinely don't know but would like to learn more. It's hard to search for "is X addictive" because of aforementioned definition overload.
mekkkkkk 5y ago
> By arbitrary I mean why are chemically addictive substances like tobacco and caffeine legal? If you are truly asking, then I'd say that it's because those substances were normalized and became a large part of culture before the overzealous harm considerations were broadly accepted. If something has enough popularity or momentum it's simply infeasible to outlaw, regardless of your general policies and principles. Prohibition etc.
- belorn 5y ago
  It should also be noted that as tobacco usage is decreasing in popularity in the world, so has the law followed by making it more more illegal in places where it can. Here in Sweden it is getting taxed to death and the places where it is legal to smoke is shrinking every year. The current battle is if apartment owners can forbid renters from smoking, and once that is in place it will just be a short time before sale of nicotine is banned outside of medical prescription. Just this year a new anti-smoking law was added. Caffeine is also getting more regulated here in terms of energy drinks. Those have gotten a similar age restrictions as alcohol. Coffee however is normalized and such a large part of the Swedish culture that any potential harm is broadly accepted as part of life. There is however a general opinion that young children should not drink it, which is first step of recognizing the effect of the substance.
hansel_der 5y ago
i feel you, but advise you not to underestimate psychological addictiveness. anecdote: been on a week-long hicking trip with a group of vegetarians and boy did i crave for a steak after that.
jrockway 5y ago
> why are chemically addictive substances like tobacco and caffeine legal I guess because they help you get up early to work an extra shift at the factory or whatever. People get nervous about drugs when they make you sleepy or appear lazy, which I'm guessing is why people hated marijuana so much. Caffeine and nicotine don't have that problem; they wake you up and make you work harder, which society sees as great. This doesn't explain alcohol, though, I guess. They tried to ban it once but it didn't take. The problem there is probably not the level of harm, but rather how ubiquitous ethanol is. Leave some sugar water out and it turns into ethanol eventually. That's a problem for people trying to ban it.
iammisc 5y ago
Tobacco and alcohol have large cultural influence. Tobacco at least should be eradicated mostly and alcohol ought to generally be reduced in usage. However, those are orthogonal problems. The solution is not to embed yet more addictive, harmful substances into the culture, without any of the controls that tobacco and alcohol do. I mean, I remember seeing marijuana ads all on buses in SF and on huge billboards in Portland, whereas that would be illegal for tobacco without massive scary warnings.

saiya-jin 5y ago

Parent is clearly clueless on this topic (and history of Nixon vs hippies/mexicans) or trolling, but a minor distinction - weed is definitely addictive, but comparatively mildly. Probably the second mildest from all those prohibited subtances, first being shrooms/acid which actually works less the more often you use it to the point of not feeling anything if you would dose daily (or so the reports said when I was reading on it, never tested it). Tobacco or alcohol create absolutely devastating addiction in comparison, that most people struggle to shed during their remaining lives (and more often than not fail with corresponding consequences).

somehnacct3757 5y ago
Taxonomic aside: I was using addictive only in the sense of chemically addictive. I've seen substance abuse or substance dependence being used rather than overloading addiction to capture those behaviors. Is this in alignment with what you're saying? Or do you mean cannabis is chemically addictive in some way? I genuinely don't know but would like to learn more. It's hard to search for "is X addictive" because of aforementioned definition overload.

mekkkkkk 5y ago

> By arbitrary I mean why are chemically addictive substances like tobacco and caffeine legal? If you are truly asking, then I'd say that it's because those substances were normalized and became a large part of culture before the overzealous harm considerations were broadly accepted. If something has enough popularity or momentum it's simply infeasible to outlaw, regardless of your general policies and principles. Prohibition etc.

belorn 5y ago
It should also be noted that as tobacco usage is decreasing in popularity in the world, so has the law followed by making it more more illegal in places where it can. Here in Sweden it is getting taxed to death and the places where it is legal to smoke is shrinking every year. The current battle is if apartment owners can forbid renters from smoking, and once that is in place it will just be a short time before sale of nicotine is banned outside of medical prescription. Just this year a new anti-smoking law was added. Caffeine is also getting more regulated here in terms of energy drinks. Those have gotten a similar age restrictions as alcohol. Coffee however is normalized and such a large part of the Swedish culture that any potential harm is broadly accepted as part of life. There is however a general opinion that young children should not drink it, which is first step of recognizing the effect of the substance.

hansel_der 5y ago

i feel you, but advise you not to underestimate psychological addictiveness. anecdote: been on a week-long hicking trip with a group of vegetarians and boy did i crave for a steak after that.

jrockway 5y ago

> why are chemically addictive substances like tobacco and caffeine legal I guess because they help you get up early to work an extra shift at the factory or whatever. People get nervous about drugs when they make you sleepy or appear lazy, which I'm guessing is why people hated marijuana so much. Caffeine and nicotine don't have that problem; they wake you up and make you work harder, which society sees as great. This doesn't explain alcohol, though, I guess. They tried to ban it once but it didn't take. The problem there is probably not the level of harm, but rather how ubiquitous ethanol is. Leave some sugar water out and it turns into ethanol eventually. That's a problem for people trying to ban it.

iammisc 5y ago

Tobacco and alcohol have large cultural influence. Tobacco at least should be eradicated mostly and alcohol ought to generally be reduced in usage. However, those are orthogonal problems. The solution is not to embed yet more addictive, harmful substances into the culture, without any of the controls that tobacco and alcohol do. I mean, I remember seeing marijuana ads all on buses in SF and on huge billboards in Portland, whereas that would be illegal for tobacco without massive scary warnings.