3 ms·
> We have quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Such as? You assert that anti-legalization is about revenue. But what about millions of people with health
by slibhb 2y ago
> We have quite a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Such as?
You assert that anti-legalization is about revenue. But what about millions of people with health issues caused by weed use/addiction? The ones discussed in the article. Is this all just made up?
My point was simple: millions of people using weed will probably cause greater net harm than a much smaller number of people going to jail. Alcohol is similar: the net harms of alcohol are astronomical. People tend to underestimate net harm when it's diffuse and overestimate it when it's very focused on a few people.
- fuzzfactor 2y agoI would assert that the criminal status-quo is about revenue more than anything. Seems like it's the criminals that actually kill people, and law enforcement effort that is misguided when they have non-violent victimless offenses on the books to pursue rather than dangerous criminals. The equation does change when you start talking about a substance that is toxic enough to kill on its own, in spite of any lesser disorders that would be considered side-effects if it was a medication you were taking. Then again, cannabis has been in the US Pharmacopeia for decades, but it was too onerous for physicians to prescribe when it was medically indicated, until the states themselves took action. There is some consensus that there would have been a lot less opiate deaths if it could have happened sooner to a more widespread degree.
- bsder 2y ago> Such as? The original article, for starters? The people in the article are sufficiently rare that doctors don't spot them very easily. And they're using a lot, every single day. That's pretty benign pharmacologically. > Alcohol is similar: the net harms of alcohol are astronomical. Funny you should mention that ... Prohibition directly shows that the net harms of alcohol not being legal are far, far worse. And, by the evidence, alcohol seems to be pharmacologically way less benign than marijuana. Is marijuana harmless? No. But you solve that by regulation rather than criminalization--just like alcohol and nicotine. And we haven't even touched on the whole issue of selective drug enforcement being institutionalized racism ...
- Gud 2y agoI think I speak for every pothead on the planet when I say this: Mate, as someone who smokes a lot of weed, I’ll take some minor health issues over getting thrown into jail and having a permanent record as a criminal. I think you are vastly exaggerating the health consequences.
- edanm 2y agoI'm not sure you're grappling with the actual claim parent is making. Of course for every individual user, it's better to have minor health problems than be thrown in jail. The question being posed (if I understood correctly) is - if legalization means 10x more people use marijuana, and therefore 10x more people have health problems, is that better or worse than marijuana remaining illegal, and some fraction of the X go to jail. (Btw this is a false dichotomy, it can be illegal without meaning you go to jail for using, but I digress.)
- consteval 2y agoI would argue that those people will have health problems regardless. Substance abuse isn't about the "substance" part, it's about the "abuse" part. Naively taking away the substance doesn't address the root cause. The root cause is complex - life sucks, things are hard, and people want to escape. I'm speculating, but I'd wager higher MJ use means lower alcohol use. On the surface this shouldn't make sense, but it does when you consider the perspective of needing to use something, rather than the something.