4 ms·

I used to be a big fan of pot and a proponent of legalization but now I am not sure. The impact of things is at the margins - people whose lives were going to

I used to be a big fan of pot and a proponent of legalization but now I am not sure. The impact of things is at the margins - people whose lives were going to work out well, will probably still be OK even with pot. People who were gonna have big problems probably will have them anyway. But I think there are some people who will be pushed from the "barely OK" to "not OK" category. The legalization (vs decriminalization) has had a clear impact on the use. You used to smell pot when walking in NYC sometime, now you smell it consistently everywhere. You are constantly in the presence of high people which did not used to be the case. In my own life there were historically some benefits to discovery of pot, but I also recognize that areas where I wasn't vigilant about it, had negative effects. For example times in my life when I had gotten fat correlate to when I smoked actively. I was vigilant for pot messing me up in obvious ways - eg I didn't let it make me miss work or stop dating etc - but the weight subtly crept on me.

ttul 3y ago
Yes, we should also make alcohol illegal again because those 1930s gangs were so cool.
- tetrep 3y ago
  Well, modern gangs realized that if they don't go around shooting white people nobody seems to mind them much, so I don't think the 1930s gangs will reappear, modern gangs will just also deal in alcohol.
burkaman 3y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but it's hard to argue that weed addiction is worse than jail (in the US). Legalization is about ending a practice that has objectively ruined many many lives. And while it's impossible to stop everyone from smoking weed and potentially becoming addicted, it's incredibly easy to stop the government from putting those people in jail. I think all this makes the decision very easy. There is no option where nobody is harmed, but legalization clearly prevents the most harm.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  I understand your argument and there's merit to it but I am not sure I agree with your conclusion. I am mainly speaking about the friction that exists for the accessibility of the vice, and that you generally want friction for things that are detrimental to the individuals and society. For example - in the US you have to be 21 to legally consume alcohol. Does that mean that nobody under 21 drinks? Of course not. But it certainly means that the consumption in that demographic is less than it would have been otherwise, since kids can't just roll up to the supermarket to get it, and since they worry about some (non-jail-level) consequences like getting in trouble with the high school dean or the college dorm director, plus the friction of not being able to consume it too publicly. Legalization has removed the friction from pot. An average individual smokes more now that they don't have to work through a "connection" to get it - so more accessible - and they can now do it out in the open vs discretely. So the consumption's gotta be way up. Re: your point about jail. I don't know about other locations but in NYC, nobody has gone to jail for pot in a long time unless they were dealing massive amounts. I think that was a better model - it kept the friction higher for use while still enabling folks to consume or sell a small amount as long as they were discrete. That's gone now.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > For example - in the US you have to be 21 to legally consume alcohol. No, federally, only to purchase or consume in public, and even then there are religious, parental consent (where permitted by state law), and other exceptions. State laws on private consumption and parental consent vary considerably.
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      You are absolutely correct, thank you. I think I was aware of this but didn't account for it in the comment you replied to. I think the point I was making still stands in terms of describing the incremental friction from all these things.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    You have to be 21 to buy weed as well, I'm not really sure what you mean. I agree that consumption is up, that's the price you pay for not arresting people (and distracting police who could be doing anything else). I don't know the details of who was imprisoned in NYC, but I do know they were still making tons and tons of arrests for minor consumption and possession charges just a few years ago, and when you get arrested you might lose your job, fail background checks for the next 7 years, not make rent because you couldn't work while you were dealing with the court, have to pay bail and a lawyer, etc. etc. The consequences can be very bad. I don't understand how you can add meaningful friction (beyond strict regulations that are already in place in every legalized state) without threatening very severe and harmful consequences. > still enabling folks to consume or sell a small amount as long as they were discrete This was never true for everyone. NYC police arrested tens of thousands every year before legalization for minor marijuana possession. If what you're saying were true, how could it be effective friction? Who would care if nobody ever gets arrested for small amounts?
cm2012 3y ago
I love edibles but think smoking should be banned in public. It smells so horrible, it's a pollution in NYC.
hathchip 3y ago
> You used to smell pot when walking in NYC sometime, now you smell it consistently everywhere. You are constantly in the presence of high people which did not used to be the case. This argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In a big city like NYC there are a) thousands of people who routinely find it easy to get hold of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, etc., and who otherwise are perfectly integrated, functioning and contributing members of society and b) thousands of other people who routinely find it easy to get hold of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and meth, and who are not able to function as part of society on even a basic level (for a whole variety of reasons: involvement in street crime, repeated mental health crises, unstable and scary behavior in public, inability to take care of their own basic needs, etc). It is likely that most of the people who live like this are frequently using hard drugs which remain illegal. Why does the fact that some people can buy cannabis who couldn't previously change the set of circumstances which determine how safe and convivial a city feels? - some group of people who previously only used legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine now smoke (a bit of) cannabis. These people are the least likely to be involved in low-level crime or anti-social behavior. They are the people who previously chose not to take a drug merely because it was illegal. They are *more law-abiding* than the average college student, the average cop, the average bass player, the average tourist. - some group of people who previously frequently got cannabis illegally, now buy it legally. These people are now slightly less likely to get into an altercation with a dealer, slightly less likely to buy coke or pills on a given weekend, slightly less likely to hang out in an unlicensed premises or on a street corner. Apart from those marginal positive effects, not much changes for them. - possibly some people in the 'chaotic life lived in public' category described above are discouraged a bit from other drugs because they can get weed legally? This is likely to be very very small. If you're suffering from multiple social and health problems, and you're a opiates, crack or speed user, you don't really care much about the legality, and the convenience of legal cannabis is more or less irrelevant to you too. - some other people whose chaotic lives in which they consume and are addicted to hard drugs now start doing cannabis on top of all the others and their lives get worse (for them or everyone else)? Nah. Crack, meth and fent are used (by this group) exactly because they have the best bang for your buck (if you don't care about enhancing any social or cultural experience, and just want to be off your face). The only people who will move towards smoking legal weed (outside of isolated situations when they can't get hold of any other drug) are people who already have the ability and/or the support to cut down on harder drugs, so the previous category essentially. People who don't care about the law, or who are unable to live within it, or who are simply unable to function constructively at all, already have unfettered access to drugs (along with the vast majority: people who care about society and generally try to live in a positive way, but who object to or ignore drug laws specifically).

ttul 3y ago

Yes, we should also make alcohol illegal again because those 1930s gangs were so cool.

tetrep 3y ago
Well, modern gangs realized that if they don't go around shooting white people nobody seems to mind them much, so I don't think the 1930s gangs will reappear, modern gangs will just also deal in alcohol.

burkaman 3y ago

I understand where you're coming from, but it's hard to argue that weed addiction is worse than jail (in the US). Legalization is about ending a practice that has objectively ruined many many lives. And while it's impossible to stop everyone from smoking weed and potentially becoming addicted, it's incredibly easy to stop the government from putting those people in jail. I think all this makes the decision very easy. There is no option where nobody is harmed, but legalization clearly prevents the most harm.

xyzelement 3y ago
I understand your argument and there's merit to it but I am not sure I agree with your conclusion. I am mainly speaking about the friction that exists for the accessibility of the vice, and that you generally want friction for things that are detrimental to the individuals and society. For example - in the US you have to be 21 to legally consume alcohol. Does that mean that nobody under 21 drinks? Of course not. But it certainly means that the consumption in that demographic is less than it would have been otherwise, since kids can't just roll up to the supermarket to get it, and since they worry about some (non-jail-level) consequences like getting in trouble with the high school dean or the college dorm director, plus the friction of not being able to consume it too publicly. Legalization has removed the friction from pot. An average individual smokes more now that they don't have to work through a "connection" to get it - so more accessible - and they can now do it out in the open vs discretely. So the consumption's gotta be way up. Re: your point about jail. I don't know about other locations but in NYC, nobody has gone to jail for pot in a long time unless they were dealing massive amounts. I think that was a better model - it kept the friction higher for use while still enabling folks to consume or sell a small amount as long as they were discrete. That's gone now.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > For example - in the US you have to be 21 to legally consume alcohol. No, federally, only to purchase or consume in public, and even then there are religious, parental consent (where permitted by state law), and other exceptions. State laws on private consumption and parental consent vary considerably.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    You are absolutely correct, thank you. I think I was aware of this but didn't account for it in the comment you replied to. I think the point I was making still stands in terms of describing the incremental friction from all these things.
- burkaman 3y ago
  You have to be 21 to buy weed as well, I'm not really sure what you mean. I agree that consumption is up, that's the price you pay for not arresting people (and distracting police who could be doing anything else). I don't know the details of who was imprisoned in NYC, but I do know they were still making tons and tons of arrests for minor consumption and possession charges just a few years ago, and when you get arrested you might lose your job, fail background checks for the next 7 years, not make rent because you couldn't work while you were dealing with the court, have to pay bail and a lawyer, etc. etc. The consequences can be very bad. I don't understand how you can add meaningful friction (beyond strict regulations that are already in place in every legalized state) without threatening very severe and harmful consequences. > still enabling folks to consume or sell a small amount as long as they were discrete This was never true for everyone. NYC police arrested tens of thousands every year before legalization for minor marijuana possession. If what you're saying were true, how could it be effective friction? Who would care if nobody ever gets arrested for small amounts?

cm2012 3y ago

I love edibles but think smoking should be banned in public. It smells so horrible, it's a pollution in NYC.

hathchip 3y ago

> You used to smell pot when walking in NYC sometime, now you smell it consistently everywhere. You are constantly in the presence of high people which did not used to be the case. This argument doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In a big city like NYC there are a) thousands of people who routinely find it easy to get hold of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamines, etc., and who otherwise are perfectly integrated, functioning and contributing members of society and b) thousands of other people who routinely find it easy to get hold of cocaine, heroin, fentanyl and meth, and who are not able to function as part of society on even a basic level (for a whole variety of reasons: involvement in street crime, repeated mental health crises, unstable and scary behavior in public, inability to take care of their own basic needs, etc). It is likely that most of the people who live like this are frequently using hard drugs which remain illegal. Why does the fact that some people can buy cannabis who couldn't previously change the set of circumstances which determine how safe and convivial a city feels? - some group of people who previously only used legal drugs like alcohol and nicotine now smoke (a bit of) cannabis. These people are the least likely to be involved in low-level crime or anti-social behavior. They are the people who previously chose not to take a drug merely because it was illegal. They are *more law-abiding* than the average college student, the average cop, the average bass player, the average tourist. - some group of people who previously frequently got cannabis illegally, now buy it legally. These people are now slightly less likely to get into an altercation with a dealer, slightly less likely to buy coke or pills on a given weekend, slightly less likely to hang out in an unlicensed premises or on a street corner. Apart from those marginal positive effects, not much changes for them. - possibly some people in the 'chaotic life lived in public' category described above are discouraged a bit from other drugs because they can get weed legally? This is likely to be very very small. If you're suffering from multiple social and health problems, and you're a opiates, crack or speed user, you don't really care much about the legality, and the convenience of legal cannabis is more or less irrelevant to you too. - some other people whose chaotic lives in which they consume and are addicted to hard drugs now start doing cannabis on top of all the others and their lives get worse (for them or everyone else)? Nah. Crack, meth and fent are used (by this group) exactly because they have the best bang for your buck (if you don't care about enhancing any social or cultural experience, and just want to be off your face). The only people who will move towards smoking legal weed (outside of isolated situations when they can't get hold of any other drug) are people who already have the ability and/or the support to cut down on harder drugs, so the previous category essentially. People who don't care about the law, or who are unable to live within it, or who are simply unable to function constructively at all, already have unfettered access to drugs (along with the vast majority: people who care about society and generally try to live in a positive way, but who object to or ignore drug laws specifically).