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

121–130 of 197 posts

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#121

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

GuiA wrote: post #65
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…

> in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. Mh? It isn't illegal to get an STD, and you don't get punished for having an STD; yet our society actively tries to limit STD transmission. Not sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for/against.

Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread disease.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#122

Post by feld »

Alex3917 wrote: post #22
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).

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.

Driving stoned is NOT fun. Physics feel all weird. I don't recommend it. It is scary.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#123

Post by Zigurd »

nick_riviera wrote: post #38
cobrausn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well I'll add one more: The physical and mental health problems and associated healthcare burden. This is not insignificant and totally shrugged off by the "pro-legalisation" side of things.

Actually, the cost of addiction recovery for all drugs other than alcohol is small, literally to the point of insignificance in most cases, compared to the cost of alcohol abuse and addiction, and ridiculously small compared to the cost of the Drug War.

in other words, by any rational measure, it's a risk worth taking.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#124

Post by baddox »

djur wrote: post #105
coob wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is a common belief among libertarians, but it doesn't reflect how governments actually work. Governments that have to rely on physical force tend to be unstable, very small, or limited in their ability to effect policies. Most people's decisions whether to follow or disobey laws are more heavily influenced by social pressures and conventions than the fear of imprisonment or physical assault by cops. Incidentally…

That comment is very much in need of some sort of citation. I find it extremely hard to believe that a significant portion of people pay taxes because of social pressure and convention rather than the fear of punishment.

A reasonable thought experiment is to imagine what would happen if the government convincingly announced that it would no longer perform any physical enforcement of any laws. I for one wouldn't immediately go out and murder or burgle anyone, because my reasons for not doing those things are firstly my ethical intuition that such an act is wrong and secondly the fact that people are likely to fight back. But you better believe that I would immediately disregard some laws, particularly ones prohibiting so-called victimless crimes.

I would make essentially the exact opposite argument as you. I think that most people believe that government is not primarily in power because of violence, I think they're wrong, and I think history (ancient to modern) makes it extremely clear that they're wrong.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#125

Post by jiggy2011 »

McDiesel wrote: post #114
jiggy2011 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard anti legalisation advocates suggest that prohibition of alcohol would indeed be a positive thing and were alcohol a new drug then it should be criminalised. However prohibition attempts (of alcohol) are doomed to fail because of how much drinking is entwined with our culture. For example pubs or bars being focal points of the community, wine being a common meal accompaniment etc. Marijuana doesn't have the…

Thats a very, frankly, stupid comment. And short sided. MJ has a HUGE group of people who use it medicinally. My wife can not eat or drink without it, due to chronic nausea to the point that without it, she throws up every 20 minutes. Medicine like Zofram barely help even at max dose, which carries with it other side effects. Calling everyone who smokes stoners is the equivalent of calling everyone who drinks a glass…

You're missing the point. The number of people who use marijuana even occasionally is much smaller than the number of people who drink alcohol and there is no society wide culture based on marijuana use. For example it's not generally accepted practice to toke up at a wedding or an office party.

This makes the practicalities of banning marijuana different to those of alcohol but is not necessarily a comment on the ethics of doing so.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#126

Post by tekromancr »

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #121
GuiA wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in common opinion, public health is an issue of crime and punishment. Mh? It isn't illegal to get an STD, and you don't get punished for having an STD; yet our society actively tries to limit STD transmission. Not sure I'm understanding what you're arguing for/against.

Sodomy and fornication were illegal and prosecuted, mostly because they spread disease.

No, mate. It's illegal because bible. Those are justifications. For example, you are far less likely to transmitted diseases by sucking cock, but under sodomy laws, it's a crime.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#127

Post by jchrome »

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…

Are you the real Fred Durst (aka, Limp Bizkit)?

If so, I wouldn't doubt that you have a lot of friends addicted to marijuana.

In terms of a response to your post, I am less than 4 months away from turning 30 years old. All of my friends were "potheads" in high school (and college). Zero of them had their life destroyed by it. They are all productive, upstanding people. If anything, I think the fact that some of them were stigmatized so heavily by being potheads really set them back.

Now, this is just anecdotal and I may not represent a "representative sample". So that's just my experience.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#128

Post by dalke »

jebus989 wrote: post #55
Alex3917 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've got to query this, I don't believe antibiotics like penicillin cause any motor/visual impairment

Some antibiotics may cause problems. Quoting from http://www.drugs.com/cdi/amoxicillin.html :

> Amoxicillin may cause dizziness. This effect may be worse if you take it with alcohol or certain medicines. Use amoxicillin with caution. Do not drive or perform other possibly unsafe tasks until you know how you react to it.

That said, I can find nothing similar for penicillin. Eg, it's not listed in the "impressive list of drugs [which] may cause vertigo or dizziness" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3853661/ , though several other antibiotics are listed.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#129

Post by pessimizer »

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…

As an obvious counterpoint: I'm pushing 40, have known dozens of people who have smoked every day since their teens. I've noticed absolutely no difference between their success rates and the success rates of others. Many of them are highly successful and productive, and some even blame much of their success on their pot smoking. The people that I saw fall apart were the alcoholics, junkies, and cokeheads, going between jail, rehab, and prison - and often coffins.

I think that you yourself will be surprised when it's more accepted by law - you'll find that many people you know and respect smoke, and they keep it from you because they're afraid of your judgment.

edit: There's actually one difference that I've noticed between my pot smoking and non pot smoking friends - the smokers tend to be small business owners, contractors and freelancers more often than the non-smokers, who are more wage-laborers. I don't have a theory about it, but I've noticed.

Post reply on HN