Canada legalises recreational cannabis use • Hacker News Board

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#271

Post by exDM69 » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:23 PM UTC

3131s wrote: post #225

koyote wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the US has a lot of influence on international culture and laws the above is simply not really true. Drug laws in Europe vary wildly between countries, with places like Portgual decriminalising even hard drugs and places like the Netherlands having an open culture when it comes to buying and consuming cannabis and other 'less hard' drugs. Then of course there's the big difference in laws when it comes to dri…

> vary wildly between countries Not really, name a European country where I won't be jailed for having even an ounce of cocaine? Portugal is as close as it gets to sensible drug policy, and they've only decriminalized (as opposed to legalized) small personal-use amounts. The only drugs that should be regulated are antibiotics :)

An ounce is quite a lot but there are several places in Europe where a small quantity of unidentified white powder on you will not cause consequences unless you're a suspected dealer or something. And you won't get searched in the first place unless you're being taken into custody (for some other offense) or suspected for being a danger to others or yourself.

E.g. Berlin is very tolerant. So is Portugal.

Helsinki would be complete opposite. You will be searched for any minor reason and anything found on you will cause consequences regardless of why you're being stopped and searched.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#272

Post by toomanybeersies » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:24 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #187

flukus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

"This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international." US basically dictates global policies in the block of countries not part of the soviet sphere of influence during the cold war. US defends it's position in the global community using every trick and leverage available. If something is illegal in the US you can be quite assured they will try to apply leverage to make it illegal everywhere els…

Banking is a great example. FATCA forces banks all over the world to send financial information on American account holders to the USA.

If a bank has even a vague hint that you might be a US person, they have to send all your personal financial information to the USA, so that the USA can collect tax from you wherever you are in the world.

Not only is this terrible from a privacy perspective. It has cost foreign banks hundreds of millions of dollars to implement. It has cost Australian banks almost half a billion dollars over the past decade.

Yet any time the rest of the world tries to make the USA play by their rules, the US government claims some moral outrage about sovereignty.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#273

Post by flukus » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:29 PM UTC

rusk wrote: post #243

lumisota wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be for a second referendum on an actual agreement for what Britain's relationship with the EU would be, post-Brexit. Some of the options, particularly those favoured by those that voted to remain, are poor.

I think many people right across the continent would probably have similar feelings. Many are "unhappy" with how the EU is presently being run but nobody would want to "leave". The confusion around Brexit emerges from just how poorly the referendum was run. It was a choice between "remain" which can only be a vote for the status quo (unsatisfactory for many) and "leave" which is open to so many interpretations as to…

I thought this was because Britain didn't have a constitution as such so the don't have actual referendums?

> An actual binding referendum against a written constitution would have to provide actual wording; rather than just a single word.

I don't disagree for any philosophical reason, but this is very easy to abuse for anyone that favors the status quo. The most notable example I can think of is the republic referendum (to remove the queen as head of state) here in Australia. Deciding the form of the republic was done first and the constitutional changes to do just that was the only question put to the public, splitting the Republican vote.

On the other hand the EU has a bit of a reputation for voting until the plebs get it right, so I can definitely see the case for binding referendums.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#274

Post by agnonnnomen » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:32 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #70

rtkwe wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of the enumerated powers.

The supreme court has never ruled against the use of drugs for religious purposes in a broad sense, so there's that at least.

You'd think that would go without saying as any theologists ought to be able to derive drug (read: drug-abuse) prohibition from first principles.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#275

Post by atlantic » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:33 PM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #187

flukus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

"This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international." US basically dictates global policies in the block of countries not part of the soviet sphere of influence during the cold war. US defends it's position in the global community using every trick and leverage available. If something is illegal in the US you can be quite assured they will try to apply leverage to make it illegal everywhere els…

> US basically dictates global policies in the block of countries not part of the soviet sphere of influence during the cold war.

You are basing yourself on vague feelings of superiority, rather than actual knowledge. Influential, yes. Dictating policy, not at all.

I'm in Portugal, we follow the US lead very often on foreign policy, but only when we agree.

We've taken our own way in drug policy, extradition (we've refused to extradite criminals to the US because of the death penalty), immigration, and in a host of other areas.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#276

Post by courtneycouch0 » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:35 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #262

courtneycouch0 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are unfortunately people that could be damaged by smoking weed, irreversibly Perhaps peanuts should be made illegal. There are people that can be irreversibly damaged by consuming peanuts. If we’re goi to be consistent and ban or regulate substances because there might be harm to an incredibly small minority then sadly there would be very very few legal foods, medications, etc. hell we should probably ban str…

> wild times you’re fearful of are returning I am not really fearing them for the sake of myself (well, except for the rise of violence/poverty they might cause). I can actually benefit from it myself by estimating what junkies would be willing to pay for and moving my e-commerce business into that direction, like what many are cynically doing now with older women and pet food. But I pity them, would rather see peopl…

I think you’re making some quite wild assumptions about motivation and impact of the use of various substances.

If you looked at those that literally are making those profound advancements you’re worried about losing, you’d also often be looking at those that moderately and recreational partake in some of these substances.

The people that partake but still excel aren’t as visible as those that don’t get themselves off the couch. You mistakingly assume that it’s purely about escapism and wasting away as a result.

I think you’d be quite surprised at the number of successful, motivated people that don’t feel the need to get a “quick fix” that partake.

Many find it helps creativity for example (and research backs this up). If you’re going to put any stock in research then the assumptions your making about motivation and impact simply doesn’t jive with what’s being observed.

It’s all beside the point anyway. Ultimately we have to decide what the role of the government has in regulating things like this and what metrics it uses to decide. Whatever those are they should be consistent. From my point of view though they’ve been anything but that. With so many prescription drugs being more addictive, more deadly, and often with fewer potential benefits than substances that are restricted even from research it’s hard to reason about.

The majority of the drug policy is less about the science (both medical and social) and more about perception and politics.

A quick aside. If it’s escapism you have an issue with then really the entire entertainment industry should be in your laser sights. Capitalism definitely has a strong embrace of promoting and capitalizing on escapism. Drugs are hardly a significant contributor here.

EDIT forgive the rambling nature of the post.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#277

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:37 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #160

toomanybeersies wrote: post #73

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisatio…

We already have many problems caused by alcohol and cigarettes, costing taxpayers billions in unnecessary expenses. I get it, people need to escape reality they live in. We know that some weed smokers end up schizophrenic and that in general smoking weed weakens one's will, so in many cases we end up with grown up children going only after the things attainable by easiest efforts. There are also some legit medical us…

[deleted]

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#278

Post by 0xcafecafe » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:39 PM UTC

Cofike wrote: post #127

I was born in Buffalo, no longer there due to lack of tech jobs (that isn’t blue cross blue shield). The Canadian side of Niagara Falls already destroys our side. Much more development. Way more activities to do. Gorgeous view of the falls. All around better. Now that weed is legalized this will only become more and more apparent. They will attract more individuals from both sides of the border and I bet see much mor…

Personally, I prefer the American side more. It has a more park like feel to it where you can enjoy the falls while sitting on the lawn, away from car honks and road noise. The Canadian side seems like an urban jungle with the waterfalls take a side step to tall hotel buildings and casinos.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#279

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:41 PM UTC

zachrose wrote: post #145

toomanybeersies wrote: post #73

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisatio…

> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. The following flavor of comment has been made many times on HN, but since I’m halfway through Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow I’m in the mood for making it again here: The drug war has been “successful”, because its goal was to incarcerate, disenfranchise, extort, terrorize, and break apart the families of minori…

The last point is unsupportable. The increase in crime rate started in the 1960s: https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/07/Violent-Crim.... By 1982, when Reagan declared the war on drugs, violent crime had nearly quadrupled since 1960, and was near the eventual 1992 peak. It had already more than doubled by 1972 when Nixon first used the phrase “war on drugs” (though it wasn’t Reagan that actually waged that war).

An explanation that fits the data better is that drugs were a scapegoat for a distingegrating society and an explosion in crime.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#280

Post by bitL » Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 12:51 PM UTC

courtneycouch0 wrote: post #276

bitL wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wild times you’re fearful of are returning I am not really fearing them for the sake of myself (well, except for the rise of violence/poverty they might cause). I can actually benefit from it myself by estimating what junkies would be willing to pay for and moving my e-commerce business into that direction, like what many are cynically doing now with older women and pet food. But I pity them, would rather see peopl…

I think you’re making some quite wild assumptions about motivation and impact of the use of various substances. If you looked at those that literally are making those profound advancements you’re worried about losing, you’d also often be looking at those that moderately and recreational partake in some of these substances. The people that partake but still excel aren’t as visible as those that don’t get themselves of…

I think it's inevitable we research what exactly drugs do to people as science progresses; I am strictly against exposing the whole population to it though. What I would be in favor of is to give adults a choice to take those drugs for 20-30 years but require them to be enrolled into a health monitoring system so that the effects could be researched properly and then an informed judgement be made (only for those persons that don't posses known risk factors). So removing the stigma of "junkies" by willing participation (license + mandatory insurance?), regulate it on manufacturing side, but also place an obligation on users to provide some benefit to society as well in better understanding of how human body works. Of course, there would be automatic limitations imposed like participation in sport competitions, high-risk jobs etc.

And ramblings are fine, it's always refreshing to read somebody's unfiltered opinion; even in disagreement it sometimes removes some innate tunnel vision ;-) I agree with what you've written about escapism.