Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 218 posts

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#171

Post by ctolsen »

paulojreis wrote: post #156
ktRolster wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For one thing, decriminalization is easy to do. Decriminalization is a bad idea. It increases demand, which gives gangs and mafia types more money. If you're going to do it, legalize it.

The Portuguese case study says that it's really not a bad idea (though not referring specifically the increasing or diminishing illegal business, just less "street value") [1][2]. But I agree with your corollary. [1] https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Shee... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#Observ...

Well, even if it doesn't change much, you're still stuck with the absolute worst part of drug prohibition – unregulated and unclean drugs, turf wars and violence, and hundreds of thousands of murders in less fortunate countries.

I find decriminalisation to be a pretty egoistic way around the problem. Sure, it makes lives better for people at home, but it completely ignores the massive amount of suffering countries (including Canada) has brought on supply and transit countries.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#173

Post by _0w8t »

robbiep wrote: post #147
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Bill Hicks said: "Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake."[1] I'm not huge in to this 'God' person, so replace 'God' with whatever is in fashion this week, the point stands. It's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Harm reduction, we do it with alcohol. That's t…

As much as I am in favour of legalising and controlling drugs (as opposed to the current system) that is a horrible argument that Bill Hicks uses - opiates are legal however I firmly remain of the opinion that allowing recreational opiate use would be a terrible thing

Even heroine is not worse than alcohol if one accounts for the total cost for society. For example, under alcohol one is much more likely to harm or kill another person than under opiats. So continuing to profit from sales of alcohol while making opiat use criminal is hypocrisy.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#174

Post by thaumasiotes »

olejorgenb wrote: post #85
ant6n wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...I'd prefer my neighbors not to stink up the whole building with their skunk stench.

Which is a separate issue. I prefer my neighbors not to stink up the whole building by [cooking smelly food|smearing shit on their walls|...], but that shouldn't make it illegal. The housing association/board (or whatever the proper english term is) might have something to say though.

> I prefer my neighbors not to stink up the whole building by [cooking smelly food|smearing shit on their walls|...], but that shouldn't make it illegal.

This example could have been chosen better. While you're correct that your dislike of the smell isn't, in the absence of other facts, a great reason for criminalizing your neighbors smearing shit on their walls, that is in fact illegal, it is illegal for very good reasons, and you dislike the smell for the same reasons doing it is illegal. In that case, the smell is actually telling you something important.

I think we have more of a "this has to be allowed" exception for cooking food than we have a general policy of "we won't take smells into account when deciding what's allowed".

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#175

Post by thaumasiotes »

auntienomen wrote: post #72
cpncrunch wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does smoking pot make you cool?

No, the contrapositive. Being cool helps you access the trust networks through which illegal supply flows.

>> Does smoking pot make you cool?

> No, the contrapositive.

The first thing you're ever taught about the contrapositive, generally at the same time the name is taught, is that a statement is exactly equivalent to its contrapositive.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#176

Post by thaumasiotes »

chris_wot wrote: post #144
MichaelGG wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well hopefully people notice that the narcotics treaties really just damage poorer countries and don't end up "fighting drugs" anyways. It's sad to see these made up "crimes" of drug selling and money "laundering", as they do suck up budgets, efforts, and lives in third world countries. One might be cubical enough to think e.g. the US loves this as a way to keep, say, Central America, under control.

I'm not saying they are good, only that it's better never to sign a treaty like this in the first place.

You can't retroactively have not signed a treaty, though. Your analysis doesn't address the question of "OK, we're in a bad spot, what do we do?", which is the question facing parties to the Convention.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#177

Post by corin_ »

NovaS1X wrote: post #64
gerry_shaw wrote: post #42

Canadian News Source http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-un-marijuana-legisl... I love that they picked this day to make an announcement.

It can't be a coincidence. I hope they pass the bill next year on this day. I'll be booking work off and heading to the Art Gallery for that one.

They didn't pick the day because of 4/20 they picked it because of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs, where multiple countries raised complaints about the current state of prohibition and Canada went one step further by announcing this to the other nations.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#178

Post by corin_ »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #47
joesmo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UN is meeting one of the next couple of months to hopefully start to get rid of all that idiocy. Hard to justify the US's position now with 4 states and DC legalizing it and many countries have been waiting some time to get rid of these stupid treaties and the war on drugs that's literally killing some of them as we speak.

>> "UN is meeting one of the next couple of months to hopefully start to get rid of all that idiocy" I think that meeting it yesterday, today, and tomorrow - hence the timing of this announcement.

Not only is it this week, but we already know that the outcome document is not going to see any real change to the current state of prohibition - the only sign of progress was a number of countries saying they want to explore different approaches and Canada saying they'll be doing this anyway.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#179

Post by bayesian_horse »

exprA wrote: post #167
bayesian_horse wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see that being an option in the case of heroin or meth. It makes sense to decriminalize users/addicts because they are the victims whom drug legislation is supposed to protect in the first place. But to me it makes no sense to allow anyone to profit from a substance that causes this much harm.

How did they manage it in the 30s (or whenever depending on your nationality)? Are you absolutely certain that criminalization wasn't an overreaction to a problem that after all wasn't all that big?

Short answer: They didn't.

Back then lives were being ruined as well. And the availability and affordability of dangerous drugs has only increased since then.

People just didn't make such a "fuss" of addiction, and especially in the case of poorer people, nobody really cared.

Re: Canada to introduce legislation to legalize recreational cannabis

#180

Post by coldtea »

exprA wrote: post #167
bayesian_horse wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see that being an option in the case of heroin or meth. It makes sense to decriminalize users/addicts because they are the victims whom drug legislation is supposed to protect in the first place. But to me it makes no sense to allow anyone to profit from a substance that causes this much harm.

How did they manage it in the 30s (or whenever depending on your nationality)? Are you absolutely certain that criminalization wasn't an overreaction to a problem that after all wasn't all that big?

In fact it still isn't that big.

>An estimated 13.5 million people in the world take opioids (opium-like substances), including 9.2 million who use heroin.

That's an insignificant number compared to the global population and all the harm the BS cat/mouse game with mafia and police has caused.

Post reply on HN