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

81–90 of 197 posts

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#81

Post by llllllllllll »

nick_riviera wrote: post #48
llllllllllll wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll explain it, though I didn't downvote you. Marijuana is illegal right now. That didn't stop that bad stuff from happening to you or your sister. Turn it into a public health issue and people like your sister-in-law will have more resources to get help. I also have skepticism that marijuana caused someone to crash into your car. It has not been proven that weed has much if any effect on driving ability, especially…

You are quite clearly an absolute dire example of a complete fucking moron if you think that smoking weed doesn't affect your driving. It affects your judgement, your motor skills, slows your reaction time and so can the withdrawal symptoms. I'm not even going to link a page because it's that easy to find supporting information that is credible.

Many retrospective studies of crash incidents have not found an increased risk with marijuana use. In my personal experience, it's effects are slight but drivers appear to compensate for their impairment by driving slower and being more careful in other ways, hence the findings of the recent survey study below (the lead researcher is quoted in the NY Times article).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24411797 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/health/driving-under-the-i...

The study’s lead author, Eduardo Romano, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, said that once he adjusted for demographics and the presence of alcohol, marijuana did not statistically increase the risk of a crash.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#82

Post by coob »

DangerousPie wrote: post #71
javert wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a crime and punishment issue, but rather one of public health Not disagreeing with anything you said, just providing a thought. Common opinion dictates that we need the state to take care of public health; thus, in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. If you take it as a principle (as I do) that we need sepration of state and public health (as with church, as with education), it has in…

The state has methods at its disposal other than crime an punishment. For example, they can try to influence the behavior of their citizens by education or taxation, like they do with cigarettes or alcohol.

I think the argument made in retort would go along the lines of - What happens if you don't pay the tax, or don't turn up to school?

All over a governments abilities boil down in their extreme to their monopoly on violence.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#83

Post by ScottBurson »

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…

"This thing causes problems. So, let's make it illegal."

That isn't the obviously good idea you seem to think it is. Outlawing things that people like also causes problems: it criminalizes responsible use as well as irresponsible use; it creates a black market which feeds organized crime; it has been a major factor in the militarization of our police departments, so that now there are lots of little towns with SWAT teams, which do get misused.

There are costs to making these things illegal, and so the question you have to ask is whether the benefit outweighs them. In the case of marijuana, it is increasingly clear that it does not.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#84

Post by ScottBurson »

nick_riviera wrote: post #58
HeyImAlex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time I smoked marijuana I was 13 years old; prohibition doesn't work, and while MJ has its burdens, prohibition has far more. We should focus on treating the addicted as human beings needing help rather than criminals to be thrown into prison.

Isn't prevention better than cure? People keep saying "prohibition didn't work" but I'm hard pressed to find a conclusive paper on the subject. Perhaps you could enlighten me? Edit: Ask for proof/sources = down vote. Hey everyone, fuck science.

I guess you're in the UK so you're unfamiliar with the American experiment with alcohol prohibition. Here's a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_State...

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#85

Post by ivanca »

fred_durst wrote: post #37
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'll bring up a point here only because I feel like the HN crowd is on the younger side. Its not until your late 20's and really 30's that you start to find out about and see people you've known in the past that were intelligent, productive people who's lives have been completely destroyed due to their drug addictions. And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and…

Many people go into "self-destruction mode" without needing any drug at all. Usually triggered by tragedies or just some phases of life, like middle life crisis and puberty. Plus many times drug addiction is a reaction, not a cause.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#86

Post by mturmon »

bobbyi_settv wrote: post #27

From the end of Part 1 of the editorial series: > On Monday at 4:20 p.m. Eastern Time, Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, will be taking questions about marijuana legalization at facebook.com/nytimes.

At 4:20? Holy crap, I thought the NYT was way too stuffy to do such a stunt. I've been a reader for many years, and the only things I can count on in life are life, death, and the sleepy character of the NYT editorial page. I think I'd better pay closer attention.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#87

Post by k-mcgrady »

nick_riviera wrote: post #49
k-mcgrady wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you. 1. The person that crashed into you (sorry, that sucks) could have done the same thing after drinking alcohol. It's legal. Do you also recommend prohibiting it? I think most people would agree driving under the influence of marijuana should be illegal. Punishments should be severe. But even now with prohibition that doesn't stop stupid people doing stupid things. Illegal or not, the world is fu…

1. Yes I do think that it should be made illegal on the basis that it causes a number of deep social problems in the UK. If you've ever seen an English town after closing time, you'll know what I mean. 2. I completely agree with you but do you think that legalising it is going to reduce the health impact? No, it's going to make it socially acceptable. Shit or get off the pot: Cite your sources regarding addiction. Ed…

1. I've seen the problems it can cause. I'm from the UK and there are many things our government can do to vastly improve the situation without banning alcohol. One simple one is extending opening times. Having relatively early closing times leads to everybody leaving bars and clubs drunk at the same time. Not a good situation but an easily solvable one.

America showed the hell that can come from alcohol prohibition. Only an idiot would look at that and consider it a solution to some anti-social behavior on the weekends.

2. I'm not sure it will make it socially acceptable. From what I've seen in the Netherlands a lot of young people think it's 'uncool' to smoke marijuana. And regarding the health impact if it is legal the government will be able to put out advice on minimizing the health consequences (e.g. using edibles, not mixing with tobacco, vaporizing instead of smoking etc.).

As for sources - Google it. I did and found several sources in seconds. The sources vary on specificity but the general message is people can become dependent but that it isn't very addictive.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#88

Post by probably_wrong »

DangerousPie wrote: post #77
TheSoftwareGuy wrote: post #70

Kind of off topic, but can we talk about how beautiful of a webpage that is?

Ironically this comment is probably the only "on-topic" comment in this entire thread, considering that this is HN. :)

If you feel a post is not HN material, you can always flag it. It's in the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#89

Post by mturmon »

eli wrote: post #17
icebraining wrote: post #8

To the Americans around here: do you think this will have any important effects? It seems to me it could have, if it had been done ten years ago, our if the NYT was a newspaper aligned with a more conservative line, but nowadays I'd expect most readers of the Times to think "took you long enough!"

I think this is a big deal. The New York Times is hardly universally respected, but it has a lot more credibility than the image normally associated with the marijuana legalization crowd. I would expect Sunday morning news programs to mention this editorial tomorrow.

Yep, this has the potential to become one of those phase-change situations where there is movement from "it will never happen because it's always been this way" and "why is this still broken?" Like gay marriage.

In these kinds of issues, the NYT is typically a lagging indicator, so it's nice to see them leading for a change.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#90

Post by ScottBurson »

techsupporter wrote: post #29
obituary_latte wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Though I support legalization of marijuana, I agree with you: smoking of any substance should be prohibited where other people have to smell the smoke.
Post reply on HN