11 ms·

As someone who supports full legalization for marijuana, I was still shocked by this headline. Cocaine is much more harmful, and much more addictive, than weed.

As someone who supports full legalization for marijuana, I was still shocked by this headline. Cocaine is much more harmful, and much more addictive, than weed. Compared to other addictive substances we allow like nicotine and alcohol, it is significantly easier to ingest in large quantities. Painkillers have a place in medicine but IMO cocaine should remain tightly controlled. Does this position make me a hypocrite?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> cocaine should remain tightly controlled Cigarettes, alcohol and painkillers are each controlled, in some cases tightly. The article’s point is prohibition often results in the opposite of control.
erichocean 4y ago
> Does this position make me a hypocrite? Different fact patterns oftentimes require different policies. And you can't outsource your thinking by wholesale transferring reasoning from one set of fact patterns to another, even if they superficially seem similar if you zoom out far enough (in this case, both are "recreational drugs"). You're not a hypocrite.
Marazan 4y ago
No you are not a hypocrite, the world of legality and morals is not simplistic and black and white. You'll always end up with situations where close situations fall either side of a dividing line. And that happens. It's not hypocritical to have a line of what is acceptable and what is not. The key thing is to have a good self-understanding of why you think different things fall either side of that line.
- uoaei 4y ago
  As an aside, I have been really enjoying a full watch-through of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which explores this exact idea from many angles.
  - digdugdirk 4y ago
    I, for one, am a staunch supporter of full Ketracel-White legalization. The current market dynamics are far too constrained.
throw827474737 4y ago
I answer the hypocrite question after learning your position about weapons! %)
- maxfurman 4y ago
  This is probably the wrong thread for it, but my opinion is that weapons should be regulated like cars. You need a license to use one. You need to register it with the state, and update that registration when you sell it to someone else. Some are only appropriate for military use, and aren't available to civilians. You can buy as many as you can afford while complying with the above.
- UnpossibleJim 4y ago
  Which weapons? Like the OP, there is scale. Knives, brass knuckles, baseball bats, nunchucks (sp?), swords, single action revolvers, double action revolvers, automatic pistols, single round rifles, single round shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, etc. etc. .... learning martial arts? What's the line? and why? I know mine, but it's probably not yours and not in line with Republican or Democrat =[
  - orwin 4y ago
    Weirdly, i have no issues with owning rifles, but the idea of anyone having a semiautomatic handgun worries me. Might be because i was a rural kid (and not from the US). I'd assume anyone carrying semiautomatics is a gang or Klan member or whatever.
    - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
      Lol, I don't think it's that weird. Pistols have (sort of) one use, and that's for using on people. But my point was his/her use of the term "weapon" and how tricky these laws can be to write. Even with good intentions, poorly written laws are dangerous laws.
taeric 4y ago
As noted by a sibling, legalization does not mean no control. As a non recreational drug example arsenic is legal, but has major controls on transport and selling. Same for stuff like liquid nitrogen.
dave_sullivan 4y ago
> Does this position make me a hypocrite? A little bit, but it depends on your personal reasons for supporting legalization. You sound like you are more concerned about bodily harm of a substance, hence marijuana is ok because it's less harmful than alcohol (which we have accepted as a baseline "well of course alcohol is legal!", so we can then allow everything "less dangerous than alcohol") I support drug legalization more from a "personal freedom of adults to make their own choices" POV. I'd even stretch that to include choices that statistically add strain to the medical system, like motorcycle riding or eating too many unhealthy foods. People shouldn't have the right to tell me what I'm allowed to put in my own body, and there also needs to be commerce allowed to service given needs, so defacto legalization of usage is not a great solution but is a start. But I've been beating that drum for a long time, argued till I was red with many people who disagreed with marijuana legalization, now it's broadly accepted and those same people forgot how strongly they felt. "People should mind their own business" is a slogan I can broadly get behind and it applies to my opinions here.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >"personal freedom of adults to make their own choices" POV What about when you inevitably have to pay for all the services drug users consume? Not to menrion lost productivity? It's not really a "personal decision" when others are funding your habit under threat of jail (IRS).
  - mikedelago 4y ago
    Members of a society don't directly benefit from most uses of tax dollars in the first place. If you're gunning for a society where your tax dollars only go to things that directly benefit you, your quality of life will likely suffer. It's also fair to note that a large chunk of tax dollars go towards arresting and essentially ruining the lives of people that are responsibly using recreational drugs in privacy. If they happen to get addicted and decide to seek treatment for it, I'm happy to have the money that I pay in taxes be used to help make someones life better.
    - 4y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
You think cocaine is tightly controlled? Methamphetamine, heroin? Have I got news for you.
- maxfurman 4y ago
  "Tightly controlled" doesn't mean "impossible for a determined individual to find"
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
    The global illicit drug trade this year exceeds US$300 billion. That's about one quarter the global pharmaceutical industry. Tightly controlled through official channels, sloshing around otherwise.
cronix 4y ago
> Does this position make me a hypocrite? Only if all drugs are the same. They are not. We've decriminalized meth, heroin and other hard drugs in Oregon. It's not going well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0im-9v4-rI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0im-9v4-rI
kristofferR 4y ago
All drugs should be legalized, to give a sale monopoly to criminal gangs and hand them all the profits is insane. If dangerous drugs, like cocaine, were legalized, they could actually be controlled. Quotas could be implemented and people who needed help could get it.
jknoepfler 4y ago
How confident are you in your assessment of the dangers of cocaine? I used to think it was on par with other tightly controlled narcotics in terms of health risks, but digging into the literature I've modified my views quite a bit. Cocaine use is a lot more normalized in the UK than it is in the states, I think the article reflects that.
jjk166 4y ago
There's no inconsistency in believing dangerous substances should be banned and marijuana simply isn't one of those substances while cocaine is. While I personally think most of the danger of cocaine is a direct result of the lack of regulation of its manufacture and consumption, the position that cocaine is too dangerous to purchase legally is still infinitely more defensible than that marijuana is too dangerous to purchase legally.
- scoofy 4y ago
  My understanding is that: Regular marijuana use, could maybe, rarely lead to lung cancer and other air quality related cancers. Regular cocaine use will often lead to a life altering/ending infarction or stroke of some kind.
drcongo 4y ago
Cocaine is without a doubt a very different proposition to legalise than weed is, it's just so moreish.
karaterobot 4y ago
Not a hypocrite, no. But, I think it should be legal because we've learned in the last few decades that the war on drugs is actually more harmful in practice than the drugs themselves.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> cocaine should remain tightly controlled Cigarettes, alcohol and painkillers are each controlled, in some cases tightly. The article’s point is prohibition often results in the opposite of control.

erichocean 4y ago

> Does this position make me a hypocrite? Different fact patterns oftentimes require different policies. And you can't outsource your thinking by wholesale transferring reasoning from one set of fact patterns to another, even if they superficially seem similar if you zoom out far enough (in this case, both are "recreational drugs"). You're not a hypocrite.

Marazan 4y ago

No you are not a hypocrite, the world of legality and morals is not simplistic and black and white. You'll always end up with situations where close situations fall either side of a dividing line. And that happens. It's not hypocritical to have a line of what is acceptable and what is not. The key thing is to have a good self-understanding of why you think different things fall either side of that line.

uoaei 4y ago
As an aside, I have been really enjoying a full watch-through of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which explores this exact idea from many angles.
- digdugdirk 4y ago
  I, for one, am a staunch supporter of full Ketracel-White legalization. The current market dynamics are far too constrained.

throw827474737 4y ago

I answer the hypocrite question after learning your position about weapons! %)

maxfurman 4y ago
This is probably the wrong thread for it, but my opinion is that weapons should be regulated like cars. You need a license to use one. You need to register it with the state, and update that registration when you sell it to someone else. Some are only appropriate for military use, and aren't available to civilians. You can buy as many as you can afford while complying with the above.
UnpossibleJim 4y ago
Which weapons? Like the OP, there is scale. Knives, brass knuckles, baseball bats, nunchucks (sp?), swords, single action revolvers, double action revolvers, automatic pistols, single round rifles, single round shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, etc. etc. .... learning martial arts? What's the line? and why? I know mine, but it's probably not yours and not in line with Republican or Democrat =[
- orwin 4y ago
  Weirdly, i have no issues with owning rifles, but the idea of anyone having a semiautomatic handgun worries me. Might be because i was a rural kid (and not from the US). I'd assume anyone carrying semiautomatics is a gang or Klan member or whatever.
  - UnpossibleJim 4y ago
    Lol, I don't think it's that weird. Pistols have (sort of) one use, and that's for using on people. But my point was his/her use of the term "weapon" and how tricky these laws can be to write. Even with good intentions, poorly written laws are dangerous laws.

taeric 4y ago

As noted by a sibling, legalization does not mean no control. As a non recreational drug example arsenic is legal, but has major controls on transport and selling. Same for stuff like liquid nitrogen.

dave_sullivan 4y ago

> Does this position make me a hypocrite? A little bit, but it depends on your personal reasons for supporting legalization. You sound like you are more concerned about bodily harm of a substance, hence marijuana is ok because it's less harmful than alcohol (which we have accepted as a baseline "well of course alcohol is legal!", so we can then allow everything "less dangerous than alcohol") I support drug legalization more from a "personal freedom of adults to make their own choices" POV. I'd even stretch that to include choices that statistically add strain to the medical system, like motorcycle riding or eating too many unhealthy foods. People shouldn't have the right to tell me what I'm allowed to put in my own body, and there also needs to be commerce allowed to service given needs, so defacto legalization of usage is not a great solution but is a start. But I've been beating that drum for a long time, argued till I was red with many people who disagreed with marijuana legalization, now it's broadly accepted and those same people forgot how strongly they felt. "People should mind their own business" is a slogan I can broadly get behind and it applies to my opinions here.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>"personal freedom of adults to make their own choices" POV What about when you inevitably have to pay for all the services drug users consume? Not to menrion lost productivity? It's not really a "personal decision" when others are funding your habit under threat of jail (IRS).
- mikedelago 4y ago
  Members of a society don't directly benefit from most uses of tax dollars in the first place. If you're gunning for a society where your tax dollars only go to things that directly benefit you, your quality of life will likely suffer. It's also fair to note that a large chunk of tax dollars go towards arresting and essentially ruining the lives of people that are responsibly using recreational drugs in privacy. If they happen to get addicted and decide to seek treatment for it, I'm happy to have the money that I pay in taxes be used to help make someones life better.
  - 4y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

You think cocaine is tightly controlled? Methamphetamine, heroin? Have I got news for you.

maxfurman 4y ago
"Tightly controlled" doesn't mean "impossible for a determined individual to find"
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  The global illicit drug trade this year exceeds US$300 billion. That's about one quarter the global pharmaceutical industry. Tightly controlled through official channels, sloshing around otherwise.

cronix 4y ago

> Does this position make me a hypocrite? Only if all drugs are the same. They are not. We've decriminalized meth, heroin and other hard drugs in Oregon. It's not going well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0im-9v4-rI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0im-9v4-rI

kristofferR 4y ago

All drugs should be legalized, to give a sale monopoly to criminal gangs and hand them all the profits is insane. If dangerous drugs, like cocaine, were legalized, they could actually be controlled. Quotas could be implemented and people who needed help could get it.

jknoepfler 4y ago

How confident are you in your assessment of the dangers of cocaine? I used to think it was on par with other tightly controlled narcotics in terms of health risks, but digging into the literature I've modified my views quite a bit. Cocaine use is a lot more normalized in the UK than it is in the states, I think the article reflects that.

jjk166 4y ago

There's no inconsistency in believing dangerous substances should be banned and marijuana simply isn't one of those substances while cocaine is. While I personally think most of the danger of cocaine is a direct result of the lack of regulation of its manufacture and consumption, the position that cocaine is too dangerous to purchase legally is still infinitely more defensible than that marijuana is too dangerous to purchase legally.

scoofy 4y ago
My understanding is that: Regular marijuana use, could maybe, rarely lead to lung cancer and other air quality related cancers. Regular cocaine use will often lead to a life altering/ending infarction or stroke of some kind.

drcongo 4y ago

Cocaine is without a doubt a very different proposition to legalise than weed is, it's just so moreish.

karaterobot 4y ago

Not a hypocrite, no. But, I think it should be legal because we've learned in the last few decades that the war on drugs is actually more harmful in practice than the drugs themselves.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]