3 ms·

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

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?
- jasonhansel 3y ago
  So, do you think that people who buy weed while under the age of 21 should face legal repercussions? And likewise for people who sell weed without checking for ID? If so, then you also believe in legal penalties for marijuana use; you're just disagreeing about who those penalties should affect and what form they should take.
  - hathchip 3y ago
    I don't believe that people who buy weed under the age of 21 should face any legal repercussions. I believe that people who sell weed without checking for ID should face licensing repercussions. This is how regulation of almost every other industry works. Chicken farmers, beauticians, and mortgage brokers obey the rules (usually) not because they are afraid of being sent to jail, but because they are afraid of losing permission to practice their business.

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?

jasonhansel 3y ago
So, do you think that people who buy weed while under the age of 21 should face legal repercussions? And likewise for people who sell weed without checking for ID? If so, then you also believe in legal penalties for marijuana use; you're just disagreeing about who those penalties should affect and what form they should take.
- hathchip 3y ago
  I don't believe that people who buy weed under the age of 21 should face any legal repercussions. I believe that people who sell weed without checking for ID should face licensing repercussions. This is how regulation of almost every other industry works. Chicken farmers, beauticians, and mortgage brokers obey the rules (usually) not because they are afraid of being sent to jail, but because they are afraid of losing permission to practice their business.