3 ms·

I 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.

by yccs27 4y ago

I 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 ago
Banning 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 ago
  Yeast 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...

by yccs27 4y ago

adrianN 4y ago

Banning 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 ago
Yeast 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...