3 ms·
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
by 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 agoA 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.