5 ms·

I sincerely believe the only people who are against legalisation of marijuana are those who don't understand it's effects on a person and those who are easily s

I sincerely believe the only people who are against legalisation of marijuana are those who don't understand it's effects on a person and those who are easily susceptible to propaganda and fail to do their own research on the subject. I can't think of even one legitimate reason for it's prohibition. If you argue for prohibition based on health consequences or risk to society you should also be arguing for prohibition of alcohol and it has been proven beyond doubt that alcohol prohibition was a really bad idea.

ebabchick 12y ago
I was under the impression that tobacco and alcohol companies are against legalization and have the largest hand in keeping it illegal.
- FreeKill 12y ago
  Not only that, but there is a substantial body within countries like the United States who benefit a lot from it being legal. For instance, the for profit prisons incarcerate non-violent drug offenders. Also, law enforcement relies heavily on policies such as seizures as a source of funding. These types of institutions also have a lot to lose when it comes to drug legalization...
- jasonwocky 12y ago
  Possibly, though I imagine that tobacco companies would probably find away to be the biggest beneficiaries if it suddenly became legal.
  - thret 12y ago
    By a long shot. I'd say they could start producing joints with exactly the same production lines they already have. You'd see tobacco+marijuana cigarettes too - a highly marketable combination of high and addiction.
    - jasonwocky 12y ago
      > You'd see tobacco+marijuana cigarettes too - a highly marketable combination of high and addiction. Damn, right there's almost good enough reason to oppose legalization.
acomjean 12y ago
Legalize it, But there are some real issues to be worked out, as someone who had a friend sent to hospital after being hit by a stoned driver who blew through a stop sign. Whats the legal limit? I'm not sure how easy it is to detect if someone is "under the influence" as the drug is detectable for weeks in the blood (in this case the join was in the car).
- eurleif 12y ago
  There's apparently a breathalyzer in development[0] that can detect use within the past two hours. [0] http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thc-breathalyzer-could-help-police-detect-stoned-drivers-1.1927203 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thc-breathalyzer-could-help-pol...
  - acomjean 12y ago
    if it works, that would solve the problem of detection.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> But there are some real issues to be worked out, as someone who had a friend sent to hospital after being hit by a stoned driver who blew through a stop sign. Whats the legal limit? Sorry that happened to your friend. Was it proven that the driver was stoned? If so I'm guessing they have an accurate way to measure it. Either way this is always going to be a problem. Look at the number of people killed by drunk drivers. The only solution is harsh prison sentences imo. Some people, willing to take the risk of DWI, disregard the danger they pose to others and if they can't understand that they should be severely punished. DWI shouldn't just lose you your license and get you probation. The punishment should be much more severe. As for your question on the legal limit - there shouldn't be one. If you get in the car you should not have had any marijuana in the last 24 hours.
  - McDiesel 12y ago
    The problem is the studies that show that MJ use is far less of an impact on driving than talking on a phone... The paranoia over stoned drivers is a little high (no pun intended) Not saying it should be ignored as an issue all together, but it seems to be the last issue the opposition can attach itself to and sound sane, and its getting a little carried away.
nick_riviera 12y ago
Anecdotally watching my sister-in-law destroy her life and brain with the stuff and having a car written off because someone was fucked up on it and crashed into me, I'd rather it stayed illegal. Also it's not other people's right to inflict the rancid shitty smell upon me is it? (Yes I know that goes for smoking and alcohol too and I'd be quite happy to do away with them as well) Edit: downvoters, please explain rather than leave a cowardly silence. I'd love to see people's down votes named on HN.
- obituary_latte 12y ago
  Luckily it's not your right to inflict your views on the rest of us. It is your right to vacate an area that has an odor you disagree with though.
  - nick_riviera 12y ago
    Let's use an analogy: What if someone was burning a tyre in my neighbour's garden directly affecting my health?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrmagooey 12y ago
      You can't up the ante and claim it's analogous. Burning a tyre releases a tremendous amount of thick black smoke, burning a joint releases several orders of magnitude less smoke, and unless you're within 10m of the person you realistically are not going to be affected. For effect: "What if someone built a rocket launch pad next to my house and it was directly affecting my health?"
      - nick_riviera 12y ago
        Doesn't that depend on how far my neighbour is away? Perhaps we have 500m long gardens... The analogy is valid as is "pissing over my fence onto my head", "kicking a football through my greenhouse", "catapulting dog shit into my garden" etc etc.
fred_durst 12y ago
I'll bring up a point here only because I feel like the HN crowd is on the younger side. Its not until your late 20's and really 30's that you start to find out about and see people you've known in the past that were intelligent, productive people who's lives have been completely destroyed due to their drug addictions. And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and family because they were/are addicted to marijuana. It definitely happens, don't kid yourself. I don't know if the correct solution is to criminalize it, but please keep in mind that drugs change who you are. That is truly the unique thing about them compared to other addictions. And again, if you think heavy marijuana use doesn't change a person, you don't know any heavy marijuana users. For example, banning alcohol and marijuana probably isn't going to work, but selling bottles of cheap vodka at the grocery store 24/7 is setting up a lot of people who are trying to get clean to fail.
- indlebe 12y ago
  >And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and family because they are addicted to marijuana. Is the evidence available strong enough to suggest that it's the marijuana causing this? Marijuana is often used by those suffering from depression and anxiety as a form of self-medication. In BC, Canada the province's leading medical doctors have come out in strong support of legalization.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - themartorana 12y ago
      I never thought that about alcohol and it's advertised like crazy. There is no possible way a 12 year old is going to take from five sentences that drugs are safe for 24-7 consumption. In fact, I'd argue that stigma and prohibition are more likely to cause a 12 or 14 year old to try pot than anyone asking if substance abuse might have other underlying causes.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
jiggy2011 12y ago
I've heard anti legalisation advocates suggest that prohibition of alcohol would indeed be a positive thing and were alcohol a new drug then it should be criminalised. However prohibition attempts (of alcohol) are doomed to fail because of how much drinking is entwined with our culture. For example pubs or bars being focal points of the community, wine being a common meal accompaniment etc. Marijuana doesn't have the same culture built around it , except for a minority of stoners.
- McDiesel 12y ago
  Thats a very, frankly, stupid comment. And short sided. MJ has a HUGE group of people who use it medicinally. My wife can not eat or drink without it, due to chronic nausea to the point that without it, she throws up every 20 minutes. Medicine like Zofram barely help even at max dose, which carries with it other side effects. Calling everyone who smokes stoners is the equivalent of calling everyone who drinks a glass of wine an alcoholic. I regularly enjoy MJ - and I think it would be short-sided to consider me a stoner, considering im a successful father of 2 with a great salary and a happy family. The good news is - the "minority" you speak of is people like you... the outdated mentality is in the minority now, with the majority of the country FOR legalization - even in traditionally red states like TX.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    You're missing the point. The number of people who use marijuana even occasionally is much smaller than the number of people who drink alcohol and there is no society wide culture based on marijuana use. For example it's not generally accepted practice to toke up at a wedding or an office party. This makes the practicalities of banning marijuana different to those of alcohol but is not necessarily a comment on the ethics of doing so.
sliverstorm 12y ago
- Anybody in the black market is going to be against legalization - How to deal with driving under the influence is not a question with a perfect answer yet
megaman821 12y ago
Is that an argument against legalization or an argument that there needs to be better access to treatments for addictions of any kind? Especially since throwing someone in prison doesn't exactly limit their access to drugs.

ebabchick 12y ago

I was under the impression that tobacco and alcohol companies are against legalization and have the largest hand in keeping it illegal.

FreeKill 12y ago
Not only that, but there is a substantial body within countries like the United States who benefit a lot from it being legal. For instance, the for profit prisons incarcerate non-violent drug offenders. Also, law enforcement relies heavily on policies such as seizures as a source of funding. These types of institutions also have a lot to lose when it comes to drug legalization...
jasonwocky 12y ago
Possibly, though I imagine that tobacco companies would probably find away to be the biggest beneficiaries if it suddenly became legal.
- thret 12y ago
  By a long shot. I'd say they could start producing joints with exactly the same production lines they already have. You'd see tobacco+marijuana cigarettes too - a highly marketable combination of high and addiction.
  - jasonwocky 12y ago
    > You'd see tobacco+marijuana cigarettes too - a highly marketable combination of high and addiction. Damn, right there's almost good enough reason to oppose legalization.

acomjean 12y ago

Legalize it, But there are some real issues to be worked out, as someone who had a friend sent to hospital after being hit by a stoned driver who blew through a stop sign. Whats the legal limit? I'm not sure how easy it is to detect if someone is "under the influence" as the drug is detectable for weeks in the blood (in this case the join was in the car).

eurleif 12y ago
There's apparently a breathalyzer in development[0] that can detect use within the past two hours. [0] http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thc-breathalyzer-could-help-police-detect-stoned-drivers-1.1927203 http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/thc-breathalyzer-could-help-pol...
- acomjean 12y ago
  if it works, that would solve the problem of detection.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> But there are some real issues to be worked out, as someone who had a friend sent to hospital after being hit by a stoned driver who blew through a stop sign. Whats the legal limit? Sorry that happened to your friend. Was it proven that the driver was stoned? If so I'm guessing they have an accurate way to measure it. Either way this is always going to be a problem. Look at the number of people killed by drunk drivers. The only solution is harsh prison sentences imo. Some people, willing to take the risk of DWI, disregard the danger they pose to others and if they can't understand that they should be severely punished. DWI shouldn't just lose you your license and get you probation. The punishment should be much more severe. As for your question on the legal limit - there shouldn't be one. If you get in the car you should not have had any marijuana in the last 24 hours.
- McDiesel 12y ago
  The problem is the studies that show that MJ use is far less of an impact on driving than talking on a phone... The paranoia over stoned drivers is a little high (no pun intended) Not saying it should be ignored as an issue all together, but it seems to be the last issue the opposition can attach itself to and sound sane, and its getting a little carried away.

nick_riviera 12y ago

Anecdotally watching my sister-in-law destroy her life and brain with the stuff and having a car written off because someone was fucked up on it and crashed into me, I'd rather it stayed illegal. Also it's not other people's right to inflict the rancid shitty smell upon me is it? (Yes I know that goes for smoking and alcohol too and I'd be quite happy to do away with them as well) Edit: downvoters, please explain rather than leave a cowardly silence. I'd love to see people's down votes named on HN.

obituary_latte 12y ago
Luckily it's not your right to inflict your views on the rest of us. It is your right to vacate an area that has an odor you disagree with though.
- nick_riviera 12y ago
  Let's use an analogy: What if someone was burning a tyre in my neighbour's garden directly affecting my health?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrmagooey 12y ago
    You can't up the ante and claim it's analogous. Burning a tyre releases a tremendous amount of thick black smoke, burning a joint releases several orders of magnitude less smoke, and unless you're within 10m of the person you realistically are not going to be affected. For effect: "What if someone built a rocket launch pad next to my house and it was directly affecting my health?"
    - nick_riviera 12y ago
      Doesn't that depend on how far my neighbour is away? Perhaps we have 500m long gardens... The analogy is valid as is "pissing over my fence onto my head", "kicking a football through my greenhouse", "catapulting dog shit into my garden" etc etc.

fred_durst 12y ago

I'll bring up a point here only because I feel like the HN crowd is on the younger side. Its not until your late 20's and really 30's that you start to find out about and see people you've known in the past that were intelligent, productive people who's lives have been completely destroyed due to their drug addictions. And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and family because they were/are addicted to marijuana. It definitely happens, don't kid yourself. I don't know if the correct solution is to criminalize it, but please keep in mind that drugs change who you are. That is truly the unique thing about them compared to other addictions. And again, if you think heavy marijuana use doesn't change a person, you don't know any heavy marijuana users. For example, banning alcohol and marijuana probably isn't going to work, but selling bottles of cheap vodka at the grocery store 24/7 is setting up a lot of people who are trying to get clean to fail.

indlebe 12y ago
>And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and family because they are addicted to marijuana. Is the evidence available strong enough to suggest that it's the marijuana causing this? Marijuana is often used by those suffering from depression and anxiety as a form of self-medication. In BC, Canada the province's leading medical doctors have come out in strong support of legalization.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - themartorana 12y ago
    I never thought that about alcohol and it's advertised like crazy. There is no possible way a 12 year old is going to take from five sentences that drugs are safe for 24-7 consumption. In fact, I'd argue that stigma and prohibition are more likely to cause a 12 or 14 year old to try pot than anyone asking if substance abuse might have other underlying causes.
- seanflyon 12y ago

jiggy2011 12y ago

I've heard anti legalisation advocates suggest that prohibition of alcohol would indeed be a positive thing and were alcohol a new drug then it should be criminalised. However prohibition attempts (of alcohol) are doomed to fail because of how much drinking is entwined with our culture. For example pubs or bars being focal points of the community, wine being a common meal accompaniment etc. Marijuana doesn't have the same culture built around it , except for a minority of stoners.

McDiesel 12y ago
Thats a very, frankly, stupid comment. And short sided. MJ has a HUGE group of people who use it medicinally. My wife can not eat or drink without it, due to chronic nausea to the point that without it, she throws up every 20 minutes. Medicine like Zofram barely help even at max dose, which carries with it other side effects. Calling everyone who smokes stoners is the equivalent of calling everyone who drinks a glass of wine an alcoholic. I regularly enjoy MJ - and I think it would be short-sided to consider me a stoner, considering im a successful father of 2 with a great salary and a happy family. The good news is - the "minority" you speak of is people like you... the outdated mentality is in the minority now, with the majority of the country FOR legalization - even in traditionally red states like TX.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  You're missing the point. The number of people who use marijuana even occasionally is much smaller than the number of people who drink alcohol and there is no society wide culture based on marijuana use. For example it's not generally accepted practice to toke up at a wedding or an office party. This makes the practicalities of banning marijuana different to those of alcohol but is not necessarily a comment on the ethics of doing so.

sliverstorm 12y ago

- Anybody in the black market is going to be against legalization - How to deal with driving under the influence is not a question with a perfect answer yet

megaman821 12y ago

Is that an argument against legalization or an argument that there needs to be better access to treatments for addictions of any kind? Especially since throwing someone in prison doesn't exactly limit their access to drugs.