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

The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 197 posts

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#21

Post by McDiesel »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #16
acomjean wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

>> 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 dri…

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.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#22

Post by Alex3917 »

acomjean wrote: post #10
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

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…

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).

The risk of driving after using marijuana is comparable to the risk of driving after using penicillin, which isn't illegal. Furthermore, the risk is far less than the risk of driving at .08, which is legal in most states. While I'm not advocating that people drive while stoned, it's not clear that there is a legal problem that needs to be solved.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#23

Post by obituary_latte »

nick_riviera wrote: post #20
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

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…

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 rat…

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.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#24

Post by techsupporter »

nick_riviera wrote: post #20
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

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…

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 rat…

That sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, something I almost always oppose.

On the other hand, I definitely sympathize with the smell, the obnoxious behavior, the litter, and even the smoke itself. Were I a supreme dictator with no care for the needs of my subjects and having some method of enforcing 100% compliance, I'd ban all smoking and public displays of alcohol and sleep soundly at night.

Unfortunately (nah, fortunately) for the two of us, life doesn't bend to such whims. In any society where I'd want to live, I'd much rather the individuals who cause harm (minor, like litter, or major, like property damage or personal injury) be slapped and slapped hard by the law, but those who are responsible and cause no negative external effects are free to do what they like.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#26

Post by nick_riviera »

obituary_latte wrote: post #23
nick_riviera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

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.

Let's use an analogy:

What if someone was burning a tyre in my neighbour's garden directly affecting my health?

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#28

Post by jasonwocky »

ebabchick wrote: post #9
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

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…

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

Possibly, though I imagine that tobacco companies would probably find away to be the biggest beneficiaries if it suddenly became legal.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#29

Post by techsupporter »

obituary_latte wrote: post #23
nick_riviera wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rat…

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.

In this case, I disagree. A couple of opposing views:

- What if I was in an area first, say a park? Does the right to light up trump my right to be somewhere in that case?

- What if I have to be there? Does the right to light up mean that I miss my bus because I'm walking to another stop or do I just have to live with it if there is no other nearby stop?

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#30

Post by cobrausn »

nick_riviera wrote: post #20
k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

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…

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 rat…

Because you basically just advocated prohibition of alcohol, drugs, and tobacco, and included in your list of reasons 'I don't like the smell'.

Never mind that prohibition was already tried and already failed.

Post reply on HN