6 ms·
While I have no interest in weed, I never understood why people are against it, since cigarettes are also a drug and are far more damaging to heath and the econ
by coldcode 4y ago
While I have no interest in weed, I never understood why people are against it, since cigarettes are also a drug and are far more damaging to heath and the economy, and in the US kills a couple hundred thousand folks a year, or alcohol, which is a drug, and kills tens of thousands of people a year. Eliminating illegality would save in so many ways, and taxes could help offset other taxes. But no, weed is somehow more terrible...
- Hamuko 4y agoWhat if I'm against weed, cigarettes and alcohol?
- jcbrand 4y agoThen don't use them.
- Hamuko 4y agoI don't use any of them. Doesn't mean that I'm not affected by the harmful effects of them.
- dymk 4y agoParticularly weed, what negative externalities do you experience?
- Hamuko 4y agoNot that many at the moment, considering that it's an illegal substance and <2% of the population consumes weed monthly (<0.2% daily), meaning that it's consumed a lot less than cigarettes (approximately 12% of the population between 20 and 64 smoke daily). It's also primarily used by young people here, meaning that long-term effects are not yet visible. But obviously there are health factors to consider with smoking weed (heart infarcts, lung issues/cancer, mental health issues, etc) that will be subsidized by the rest of the society. I'm also concerned about the affects of weed on driving if it becomes legal and its consumption increases, as alcohol is involved in every fourth fatal car accident and weed increases risk factors for car crashes.
- kzrdude 4y agoCigarettes are stimulating in a way similar to coffee - weed is not, so the lutheran morals dominated cultures (admittedly a quite outdated generalization) look very disapprovingly upon it.
- mellavora 4y agoNo, sorry. Study history. Weed was criminalized as a mechanism for white people to control black people, because weed was a Mexican and black person drug when those laws were enacted. It's all in the arguments in favor of the criminalization laws when they were passed. nothing to do with the Protestant Work Ethic. Sorry if the phrase "black person" is offensive, none is meant.
- lbotos 4y agoI think you missed the point. Protestant work ethic does not want people "being lazy". In that era when workers were Black and Mexican and smoking, protestant work ethic is what is making white people in power want to stop people from having a little escape.
- imtringued 4y agoThe point of the protestant work ethic is about splitting society into lazy and hard working. Any sane person knows that people should decide how much division of labor they want for themselves.
- mariusor 4y agoCan you tell us how does your theory apply to the other countries of the globe where marijuana is illegal though?
- mason55 4y agoAmerican hegemony.
- NickRandom 4y ago
- wahnfrieden 4y agoAnyone can grow weed and that would cut into tobacco profits, a powerful lobby. You don't honestly think legislation is about health
- alar44 4y agoNonsense. Are tobacco companies not allowed to own a cannabis company? They'll jump on that shit as soon as they can.
- bornfreddy 4y agoI think GP was trying to say that it is easier to grow cannabis than tobacco at home, which puts an upper limit to prices.
- ch4s3 4y agoCigarettes are only expensive because of the taxes.
- cmrdporcupine 4y agoAnybody can grow tobacco too. I do it most years just because of the pretty flowers. Much easier than growing cannabis, actually. The curing process is a bit of work, but for cigarette (as opposed to pipe or cigar) quality tobacco not so hard.
- wahnfrieden 4y agoThat's great that you as an individual have the knowledge/capability but simple observation shows that doesn't make a difference in practice Canada: >Growing cannabis (either growing their own or having it grown for them by someone else) was a supply-source for 14.2% of consumers in 2020 I can't find stats on tobacco users who grow their own supply for Canada because I suspect it's vanishingly small next to that 14.2%
- yccs27 4y agoI don't think we would ever legalize cigarettes and alcohol if they weren't already widespread. You cited the numbers yourself, it would be a terrible decision. But lots of people are already using these substances, and we've seen how well it works to make alcohol illegal... The reason cigs/alcohol are legal has nothing to do with their addictiveness or the harm they do, so a comparison with them. The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third substance! (Note: Personally, I actually support weed legalisation, because it eliminates black markets and other problems that illegality brings. But that's a whole other, more nuanced argument. See the frontpage thread about steelmanning...)
- adrianN 4y agoBanning tobacco is plausible because it's somewhat difficult to grow the plants. But you can't ban alcohol. Anybody can produce it. You can literally produce it by accident.
- jamesakirk 4y agoYeast has been genetically modified to produce psilocybin ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109671761930401X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109671761... ). Researches have yielded the equivalent of about 60g dried shroom in only 1 liter of solution. When psychedelics become as easy to produce as beer, the world is gonna be a whole lot weirder.
- adamsmith143 4y ago>The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third substance! This is absolutely NOT the argument against legalization anywhere that I've seen. It's almost universally a claim that MJ is uniquely dangerous and should be kept illegal for that reason.
- piva00 4y ago> The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third substance! Which is a stupid thought given that even when completely banned and carrying harsh penalties people still partake in drug usage. Draconian laws may diminish the ratio of users but they are still there, and draconian laws only make those people become pariahs in their societies, pushing them into deeper holes. Singapore, Japan, Sweden, Philippines, etc. still have drugs and users, no matter how draconian prohibition is...
- iinnPP 4y agoPfizer and their ilk prevent it.
- dpbriggs 4y agoIt's possible to have concerns about it even if alcohol is worse. I think most people are reacting to the "it cures cancer" culture which denies any negative effect. Personally I've seen weed addiction in close friends and family and it's not pretty. It's slowly poisoning yourself while your life stagnates or falls apart. But they're convinced they're not addicted as you can't get addicted to weed.
- adamsmith143 4y ago>But they're convinced they're not addicted as you can't get addicted to weed. Habit forming, yes. Physically addictive? No.
- dpbriggs 4y agoRecovery from wake and bake will involve withdrawal symptoms and cravings, both of which have a physical basis. You can't expect flooding your brain all day and every day with a menagerie of feel-good chemicals and not expect adaptations which need to be undone.
- adamsmith143 4y agoThis is not a fact based judgement. Physical Addiction has an actual basis in biology, not just your opinion.
- dpbriggs 4y agoThat doesn't make sense what you wrote. I encourage you to read up on long term maurijuana use and addiction. This Wikipedia page is detailed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_use_disorder?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_use_disorder?wprov=sf... It's common sense that your body will physically adapt to most substances consumed regularly. Most of the time that means tolerance and subsequent withdrawal when its removed, which is caused by some physical process. Weed isn't magic.
- an9n 4y agoThe trouble is that skunk is now prevalent and much, much more powerful than standard weed or hash - and the stronger it is, the more likely that it will trigger serious mental health problems like schizophrenia in a percentage of users. Also, setting aside the acute and dramatic consequences, take a walk around pretty much any reasonably sized town in the UK and before long you'll smell the characteristic smell of skunk-type weed. No matter how lenient one is the question has to be asked: is it really healthy for a society to have a good proportion of its citizens in a permanent semi-baked state? I certainly would prefer the doctor, driver, pilot or teacher for my children that does not smoke skunk, given the choice, and all else being equal.
- samatman 4y agoThere is no flower available which is stronger than hash. If you think about it for a few seconds, you'll see why. You didn't because it undermines your argument, since the UK has mostly smoked hash historically.
- an9n 4y agoIt took me literally a few seconds to find this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannabis-triples-risk-psychotic-episodes-study https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/16/skunk-cannab... 'Smoking powerful skunk cannabis triples the risk of suffering a serious psychotic episode, scientists have found.' 'Those who reported smoking milder forms of the drug, such as hash, did not appear to be at increased risk, for instance. Murray said that, in line with this finding, he recommends hash to patients who are struggling to give up smoking altogether.'