5 ms·

We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not en

by jwatte 12y ago

We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.)

Troubadr 12y ago
An interesting opinion you have there. However, based on years of legal alcohol use by the public, I'd disagree. Besides the health and freedom issues, your opinion sounds like it's biased.
- tptacek 12y ago
  What "opinion"? All he said was that the data isn't in yet.
  - pstuart 12y ago
    Data on legalization vs. data on the effects of cannabis consumption? Or the data on the effect of criminalizing cannabis consumption? Because you don't need to be a scientist to know that the current laws are flawed through and through and that the only good thing about them is that if you own a private prison you're going to make a lot of money.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I don't understand this comment at all. The grandparent comment didn't take a position on any of the issues you mention, and the only hypothetical position it mentioned that's germane to your comment agrees with your comment.
      - pstuart 12y ago
        "the data isn't in yet" What data?
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        mkopinsky 12y ago
        The data on broad societal effects of legalization. Did you read the thread??
        pstuart 12y ago
        How about the data on the broad societal effects of prohibition? Are you a tool?
        true_religion 12y ago
        He basically said there hasn't been enough time since the prohibition ended to see what its effects will be. For instance, you can't tell if increased drug use will harm high school graduation rates if no one has graduated yet during the term of legalization.
        pstuart 12y ago
        First you have to prove that prohibition is increasing consumption by high schoolers, then you have to prove that any change in graduation rates are tied to that consumption. And for all the worrying over the so-called damage due by ending this prohibition, there should be an assessment of damaged caused by the prohibition. Then compare the two.
        tptacek 12y ago
        No. What you've done here is attribute to someone else the argument you wanted to get indignant about, despite the fact that they made no such argument. That behavior makes it impossible to discuss anything.
        pstuart 12y ago
        GP post: > We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.) From the article: The ominously predicted harms from> legalization — like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates and other ills — remain imaginary worries. "drop outs" wasn't mentioned in the article. And what, pray tell, is the methodology for doing such an analysis other than "drugs are bad, m'kay?" And again, the whole point of the comment was a concern for assessing societal harm. To take such a view and not acknowledge the damage that prohibition causes is intellectually dishonest.
  - Troubadr 12y ago
    When someone shoves "False Facts" like "Seven months is not enought time for X", that is an opinion. Who gives anyone the right to say "X Number of Months" is required for something non-specific? What a bunch of malarkey! Nice job trying to elevate his opinion to a fact... you must agree with his biased opinion. As do everyone who has down-voted me.
    - shiven 12y ago
      Troubadr, I have not downvoted you, but this being HN, I can tell you from experience that the tone of writing here is as important as your logic/idea. Your comments in this thread, although not fundamentally wrong or incongruous, appear to the readers as off-hand, drive-by commenting that one could get away with on Reddit or some random blog's comment thread. I would be very surprised if you put forth your ideas and arguments in a more lucid, fleshed-out manner and still face the same unpleasant downvoting.
      - Troubadr 12y ago
        Try to get over yourself and respect me for who I am. I'm not interested in your opinion of my writing style! How offensive can you be? It really boggles the mind.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      > Who gives anyone the right to say "X Number of Months" is required for something non-specific? What a bunch of malarkey! It's not a right, it's a matter of statistical significance. People who measure certainty actually care.
ScottBurson 12y ago
Did you read the part about California? "Medical" marijuana has been legal here since 1996. As the article says, Many call it de facto legalization, because medical marijuana ID cards are laughably easy to get. While California’s experience shows the downsides of ineffectual laws and lax enforcement, it has not turned the state into a story of rampant addiction, crime or community upheaval. Support for full legalization there has grown as dire predictions of disaster, made over two decades, have not been borne out.
- DanBC 12y ago
  A person can strongly want drugs to be legalised, and still be concerned about potential problems from drugs. It's possible that cannabis has a causative connection to some psychotic illnesses. It seems reasonable that cannabis can trigger underlying illness, or exacerbate existing illness. So while I am strongly in favour of legalising drugs I am still concerned about possible harms from cannabis. Researching this is difficult. Partly because cannabis is illegal and thus recruiting subjects is fraught with ethical difficulties, but also because we need very many years to research. EDIT: 1996 isn't even 20 years ago.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    > A person can strongly want drugs to be legalised, and still be concerned about potential problems from drugs. Agreed. I'm sure there will be some problems from legal marijuana, though I don't see any sign they'll be nearly as bad as the problems caused by prohibition. In the case of other drugs which we might consider legalizing eventually, this might be more debatable. > 1996 isn't even 20 years ago. It's within 10% of 20 years ago, and anyway, it's a lot more than seven months ago. Not sure what your point is here.
icambron 12y ago
I think it's a question of defaults. The null hypothesis is that it won't lead to blight, violence, and widespread addiction for the same reason that most other stuff doesn't. Those fears, as the article puts it, are imaginary (though they were shrilly predicted by legalization's opponents). In other words, the bar here isn't "good evidence that legalization isn't harmful to society" but rather, "a lack of good evidence that it isn't".

by jwatte 12y ago

Troubadr 12y ago

An interesting opinion you have there. However, based on years of legal alcohol use by the public, I'd disagree. Besides the health and freedom issues, your opinion sounds like it's biased.

tptacek 12y ago
What "opinion"? All he said was that the data isn't in yet.
- pstuart 12y ago
  Data on legalization vs. data on the effects of cannabis consumption? Or the data on the effect of criminalizing cannabis consumption? Because you don't need to be a scientist to know that the current laws are flawed through and through and that the only good thing about them is that if you own a private prison you're going to make a lot of money.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I don't understand this comment at all. The grandparent comment didn't take a position on any of the issues you mention, and the only hypothetical position it mentioned that's germane to your comment agrees with your comment.
    - pstuart 12y ago
      "the data isn't in yet" What data?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - mkopinsky 12y ago
        The data on broad societal effects of legalization. Did you read the thread??
        pstuart 12y ago
        How about the data on the broad societal effects of prohibition? Are you a tool?
        true_religion 12y ago
        He basically said there hasn't been enough time since the prohibition ended to see what its effects will be. For instance, you can't tell if increased drug use will harm high school graduation rates if no one has graduated yet during the term of legalization.
        pstuart 12y ago
        First you have to prove that prohibition is increasing consumption by high schoolers, then you have to prove that any change in graduation rates are tied to that consumption. And for all the worrying over the so-called damage due by ending this prohibition, there should be an assessment of damaged caused by the prohibition. Then compare the two.
        tptacek 12y ago
        No. What you've done here is attribute to someone else the argument you wanted to get indignant about, despite the fact that they made no such argument. That behavior makes it impossible to discuss anything.
        pstuart 12y ago
        GP post: > We might think that smoking can be bad for individuals, and decriminalization is good for society at the same time. However, a seven month time period is not enough to read the experiment on many the variables claimed in the article (blight, drop outs, etc.) From the article: The ominously predicted harms from> legalization — like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates and other ills — remain imaginary worries. "drop outs" wasn't mentioned in the article. And what, pray tell, is the methodology for doing such an analysis other than "drugs are bad, m'kay?" And again, the whole point of the comment was a concern for assessing societal harm. To take such a view and not acknowledge the damage that prohibition causes is intellectually dishonest.
- Troubadr 12y ago
  When someone shoves "False Facts" like "Seven months is not enought time for X", that is an opinion. Who gives anyone the right to say "X Number of Months" is required for something non-specific? What a bunch of malarkey! Nice job trying to elevate his opinion to a fact... you must agree with his biased opinion. As do everyone who has down-voted me.
  - shiven 12y ago
    Troubadr, I have not downvoted you, but this being HN, I can tell you from experience that the tone of writing here is as important as your logic/idea. Your comments in this thread, although not fundamentally wrong or incongruous, appear to the readers as off-hand, drive-by commenting that one could get away with on Reddit or some random blog's comment thread. I would be very surprised if you put forth your ideas and arguments in a more lucid, fleshed-out manner and still face the same unpleasant downvoting.
    - Troubadr 12y ago
      Try to get over yourself and respect me for who I am. I'm not interested in your opinion of my writing style! How offensive can you be? It really boggles the mind.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    > Who gives anyone the right to say "X Number of Months" is required for something non-specific? What a bunch of malarkey! It's not a right, it's a matter of statistical significance. People who measure certainty actually care.

ScottBurson 12y ago

Did you read the part about California? "Medical" marijuana has been legal here since 1996. As the article says, Many call it de facto legalization, because medical marijuana ID cards are laughably easy to get. While California’s experience shows the downsides of ineffectual laws and lax enforcement, it has not turned the state into a story of rampant addiction, crime or community upheaval. Support for full legalization there has grown as dire predictions of disaster, made over two decades, have not been borne out.

DanBC 12y ago
A person can strongly want drugs to be legalised, and still be concerned about potential problems from drugs. It's possible that cannabis has a causative connection to some psychotic illnesses. It seems reasonable that cannabis can trigger underlying illness, or exacerbate existing illness. So while I am strongly in favour of legalising drugs I am still concerned about possible harms from cannabis. Researching this is difficult. Partly because cannabis is illegal and thus recruiting subjects is fraught with ethical difficulties, but also because we need very many years to research. EDIT: 1996 isn't even 20 years ago.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  > A person can strongly want drugs to be legalised, and still be concerned about potential problems from drugs. Agreed. I'm sure there will be some problems from legal marijuana, though I don't see any sign they'll be nearly as bad as the problems caused by prohibition. In the case of other drugs which we might consider legalizing eventually, this might be more debatable. > 1996 isn't even 20 years ago. It's within 10% of 20 years ago, and anyway, it's a lot more than seven months ago. Not sure what your point is here.

icambron 12y ago

I think it's a question of defaults. The null hypothesis is that it won't lead to blight, violence, and widespread addiction for the same reason that most other stuff doesn't. Those fears, as the article puts it, are imaginary (though they were shrilly predicted by legalization's opponents). In other words, the bar here isn't "good evidence that legalization isn't harmful to society" but rather, "a lack of good evidence that it isn't".