The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
1–10 of 197 posts
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#2Not a user, but after being a bartender for years - and knowing many who do consume marijuana - there seems to be no logical reason to punish (let alone _incarcerate_) people for something which is ultimately less destructive than what I was allowed to push for so many years.
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#3I 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 of alcohol and it has been proven beyond doubt that alcohol prohibition was a really bad idea.
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#4And so does the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379018/let-states-deci...
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#5I was really glad to see states starting to do something about this, but this should really be changed at the federal level. It's less bad for you than alcohol and cigarettes. The war on it is just so costly and absurd on so many levels.
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#6Neat animation effect as your scroll down the page. Is it using SVG to animate the morph from star to cannabis leaf?
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#7Two plugs I always make during any drug law discussion on HN:
One - The Economist's 2009 article "Failed states and failed policies" - http://www.economist.com/node/13237193 (you might have to Google the title to get around a paywall)
Two - The documentary, The House I Live In - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/ (trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0atL1HSwi8)
Both make such a fascinating case that drugs should have never been a crime and punishment issue, but rather one of public health. I highly recommend both for a read and a watch, and both will articulate the case far superior to anything I would be able to write here.
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#8To 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!"
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#9I 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.
Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization
#10I 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).