5 ms·

True. On the other hand, some claim that THC is more mind-altering than alcohol. I don't know if it's true or not. I won't go into that. Imagine stoned drivers

by Rod 18y ago

True. On the other hand, some claim that THC is more mind-altering than alcohol. I don't know if it's true or not. I won't go into that. Imagine stoned drivers losing control of their SUVs and running over little children walking out of school. This doomsday scenario could be used to argue against legalization. Of course, drunk drivers are as dangerous, and drivers high on valium are not harmless either. However, there's a cultural "problem" which leads most people to consider some drugs acceptable (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, valium) and some other drugs "evil" (e.g., marijuana). I am not a big fan of the Dutch system of having a central database, but if it would help tame people's fears of over-consumption, then it could be a good idea. Why not devise a smart system which would assign a unique identifier to each person (think authentication instead of identification) so that people's consumption could be limited without compromising their privacy. That way, if there were a privacy breach and the data leaked to the public domain, no one's privacy would be at risk because there would be no way to map one's identifier to one's ID. Do you think this would make sense?

garply 18y ago
People smoke very different amounts, so at what amount do you cap consumption? Imagine the same scenario being carried out for alcohol. You might drink a couple beers a month, but Joe the Drinker might max out his beer quota every day and still want more. You, or someone like you with an entrepreneurial bent, might then decide to max out your own beer quota every day in order to sell the beer to Joe with a markup. Then presumably the law would need to crack down on you for selling your alcohol ration to someone else, and we're in a legal place very similar to where we started. Doesn't that issue crop up in the Dutch system? Or is the allowed amount high enough that people can essentially get as intoxicated as they want?
- Rod 18y ago
  I haven't been to Amsterdam yet, so my description of the "Dutch system" is based on what I heard from friends who live there, not from my own personal experience. It sounds like a good system, though. If what I have heard is accurate, then the quota is on daily consumption. I can't help thinking of algorithms that would update one's maximum allowable purchase of pot based on the exact dates and hours one last purchased. If the system allows one to buy enough each day to get "high enough" without getting "too high", no one would have an incentive to buy pot in the black market at higher prices. The one thing I keep wondering is: what happens if I buy pot at 23:50 and go to another shop to buy pot 10 minutes later? Since, technically, it's a new day, will I be allowed to buy as much as the daily quota allows again? It's intriguing.
  - ojbyrne 18y ago
    Unless this is a new development, this "daily quota" doesn't exist. There's no ids, no central database, no daily quotas. There wouldn't be "drug tourists" all over the Netherlands if there were such a thing. And there's no mention of it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
    - menloparkbum 18y ago
      The description of the "dutch system" is totally imaginary. Downvoted for making things up and presenting them as fact.
      - Rod 18y ago
        1) I made it clear that I could not guarantee its accuracy. I made it clear that it was not a "fact" but something I heard. 2) the fact that the system does not exist (at least in the Netherlands) does not make it not worth considering. Unless you have something intelligent to say about WHY the database would be a bad idea, your input hasn't been helpful either.
        menloparkbum 18y ago
        Sorry, was in a bad mood when I wrote that. Gave you an upmod on this one to make up for it. Been to Amsterdam and there's no database. To address 2) there's a lot of problems, it would be expensive to implement, there's a lot of security issues involved, it seems unnecessary - alcohol and cigarettes cause many more problems; they should get this treatment before weed does. On the other hand, I feel like the system you proposed may already exist in rural small town pharmacies for antihistamines which can be used to produce crystal meth.
        Rod 18y ago
        I don't know where I got the impression that they had a database system in Amsterdam. Talked to some good friends living there years ago, and they might have mentioned that there was a proposal to implement such a system... or that it could be interesting to implement it. I should have been more careful when presenting "facts" whose accuracy I can't guarantee. I agree that the database would be expensive to implement. On the other hand, taxing marijuana and all the money that could be saved from not fighting marijuana dealing anymore could perhaps finance the database system. I am not a security professional, so I don't know how to implement a system that could authenticate users without identifying them, but that seems to present lots of interesting technical problems. I agree that if there's no alcohol database, then there should be no database for weed either. On the other hand, alcohol is tolerated by society much more than weed. This makes no sense, but it's a reality. I would say that being pragmatic would be a good idea: introducing a database would tame the "fears" of those who claim that legalization would "corrupt" the teeanagers and our society's "values". Sometimes it's better to take little steps. Legalize but control consumption using a database. A few years later, people will have gotten used to the new paradigm that there might be no objections to abolishing the database. I say, legalize one step at a time because it increases the chances of success.
gnaritas 18y ago
> Imagine stoned drivers losing control of their SUVs and running over little children walking out of school. Or how about don't imagine that, it's ignorant. Running over children walking out of school is already illegal. It's not at all an argument against legalization, it's just a cheap emotional appeal tossing kids into the mix to get sympathy. We do not need to imagine how things affect the children every time society brings up some issue of what adults can or can't do to their own bodies. Secondly, in a free society, you don't argue for legalization, you argue for making something illegal, legal should be the default status. The question is not why should we legalize marijuana, it's what justifies it being illegal. The answer is nothing, it's absurd and unjustified. It should be legal because there is no valid reason for it to be illegal. There is no justification for telling an adult what they can or can't do to their own body. The drug is not addictive, tends to only calm people down and make them hungry, and is far safer than alcohol. That it is illegal is far more related to the politics of the cotton industry not wanting competition from hemp 60 years ago than for any reason to do with the drug itself or the safety of it.
- Rod 18y ago
  I know it's an extreme example (and a display of ignorance), but I am sure some "conservatives" would invoke something like that against legalization. I wholeheartedly agree with you that adults have the right to do what they want with their bodies. I draw the line when adults consume certain mind-altering substances and might endanger others. However, moderate consumption of marijuana seems to be less dangerous than alcohol, so I believe the only obstacle there seems to be is the legacy of the cotton industry's lobbying some decades ago. Interesting how society takes so long to adjust...

by Rod 18y ago

garply 18y ago

People smoke very different amounts, so at what amount do you cap consumption? Imagine the same scenario being carried out for alcohol. You might drink a couple beers a month, but Joe the Drinker might max out his beer quota every day and still want more. You, or someone like you with an entrepreneurial bent, might then decide to max out your own beer quota every day in order to sell the beer to Joe with a markup. Then presumably the law would need to crack down on you for selling your alcohol ration to someone else, and we're in a legal place very similar to where we started. Doesn't that issue crop up in the Dutch system? Or is the allowed amount high enough that people can essentially get as intoxicated as they want?

Rod 18y ago
I haven't been to Amsterdam yet, so my description of the "Dutch system" is based on what I heard from friends who live there, not from my own personal experience. It sounds like a good system, though. If what I have heard is accurate, then the quota is on daily consumption. I can't help thinking of algorithms that would update one's maximum allowable purchase of pot based on the exact dates and hours one last purchased. If the system allows one to buy enough each day to get "high enough" without getting "too high", no one would have an incentive to buy pot in the black market at higher prices. The one thing I keep wondering is: what happens if I buy pot at 23:50 and go to another shop to buy pot 10 minutes later? Since, technically, it's a new day, will I be allowed to buy as much as the daily quota allows again? It's intriguing.
- ojbyrne 18y ago
  Unless this is a new development, this "daily quota" doesn't exist. There's no ids, no central database, no daily quotas. There wouldn't be "drug tourists" all over the Netherlands if there were such a thing. And there's no mention of it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands
  - menloparkbum 18y ago
    The description of the "dutch system" is totally imaginary. Downvoted for making things up and presenting them as fact.
    - Rod 18y ago
      1) I made it clear that I could not guarantee its accuracy. I made it clear that it was not a "fact" but something I heard. 2) the fact that the system does not exist (at least in the Netherlands) does not make it not worth considering. Unless you have something intelligent to say about WHY the database would be a bad idea, your input hasn't been helpful either.
      - menloparkbum 18y ago
        Sorry, was in a bad mood when I wrote that. Gave you an upmod on this one to make up for it. Been to Amsterdam and there's no database. To address 2) there's a lot of problems, it would be expensive to implement, there's a lot of security issues involved, it seems unnecessary - alcohol and cigarettes cause many more problems; they should get this treatment before weed does. On the other hand, I feel like the system you proposed may already exist in rural small town pharmacies for antihistamines which can be used to produce crystal meth.
        Rod 18y ago
        I don't know where I got the impression that they had a database system in Amsterdam. Talked to some good friends living there years ago, and they might have mentioned that there was a proposal to implement such a system... or that it could be interesting to implement it. I should have been more careful when presenting "facts" whose accuracy I can't guarantee. I agree that the database would be expensive to implement. On the other hand, taxing marijuana and all the money that could be saved from not fighting marijuana dealing anymore could perhaps finance the database system. I am not a security professional, so I don't know how to implement a system that could authenticate users without identifying them, but that seems to present lots of interesting technical problems. I agree that if there's no alcohol database, then there should be no database for weed either. On the other hand, alcohol is tolerated by society much more than weed. This makes no sense, but it's a reality. I would say that being pragmatic would be a good idea: introducing a database would tame the "fears" of those who claim that legalization would "corrupt" the teeanagers and our society's "values". Sometimes it's better to take little steps. Legalize but control consumption using a database. A few years later, people will have gotten used to the new paradigm that there might be no objections to abolishing the database. I say, legalize one step at a time because it increases the chances of success.

gnaritas 18y ago

> Imagine stoned drivers losing control of their SUVs and running over little children walking out of school. Or how about don't imagine that, it's ignorant. Running over children walking out of school is already illegal. It's not at all an argument against legalization, it's just a cheap emotional appeal tossing kids into the mix to get sympathy. We do not need to imagine how things affect the children every time society brings up some issue of what adults can or can't do to their own bodies. Secondly, in a free society, you don't argue for legalization, you argue for making something illegal, legal should be the default status. The question is not why should we legalize marijuana, it's what justifies it being illegal. The answer is nothing, it's absurd and unjustified. It should be legal because there is no valid reason for it to be illegal. There is no justification for telling an adult what they can or can't do to their own body. The drug is not addictive, tends to only calm people down and make them hungry, and is far safer than alcohol. That it is illegal is far more related to the politics of the cotton industry not wanting competition from hemp 60 years ago than for any reason to do with the drug itself or the safety of it.

Rod 18y ago
I know it's an extreme example (and a display of ignorance), but I am sure some "conservatives" would invoke something like that against legalization. I wholeheartedly agree with you that adults have the right to do what they want with their bodies. I draw the line when adults consume certain mind-altering substances and might endanger others. However, moderate consumption of marijuana seems to be less dangerous than alcohol, so I believe the only obstacle there seems to be is the legacy of the cotton industry's lobbying some decades ago. Interesting how society takes so long to adjust...