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

181–190 of 197 posts

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#181

Post by lfuller »

nick_riviera wrote: post #60
mrmagooey wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't up the ante and claim it's analogous. Burning a tyre releases a tremendous amount of thick black smoke, burning a joint releases several orders of magnitude less smoke, and unless you're within 10m of the person you realistically are not going to be affected. For effect: "What if someone built a rocket launch pad next to my house and it was directly affecting my health?"

Doesn't that depend on how far my neighbour is away? Perhaps we have 500m long gardens... The analogy is valid as is "pissing over my fence onto my head", "kicking a football through my greenhouse", "catapulting dog shit into my garden" etc etc.

A smell that you don't like isn't comparable to destruction of your property or having toxic waste thrown on you.

I have a neighbour that often cooks curry; I can't stand the smell of curry. Even though the smell comes in through my windows, I don't have the right to force them to stop cooking. I just close my windows.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#182

Post by jsmthrowaway »

meowface wrote: post #170
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).

Lots of marijuana activists claim that driving while high does not impair your driving ability. Anyone who's ever been extremely stoned knows that even basic tasks like walking or talking are difficult, let alone driving. I don't really mind a nearly-zero-tolerance policy for driving while on any kind of drug. Some people are way more tolerant to weed than others, and may be nearly sober even with a THC concentration…

> Lots of marijuana activists claim that driving while high does not impair your driving ability.

[citation needed], as I could be considered one and believe it should be handled similar to DUI, and I've never met another "marijuana activist" that thought differently.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#183

Post by aianus »

coreymgilmore wrote: post #153

Full legalization has a single major hurdle for me: testing for a person's level of "high". Think of this as a blood alcohol content breathalyzer test. There is a definite method for determining the amount of alcohol inside a person's body and laws use these limits for punishment. This is highly important. No body wants someone "high as a kite" operating a vehicle. It is not in the public's best interest to have very…

I'm not sure why people are so terrified of drunk and high drivers. I've ridden my bicycle drunk and I've driven while tired and the latter was far far more dangerous. Old people and distracted soccer moms in SUVs are more dangerous than some guy who smoked a joint an hour ago IMO.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#184

Post by matt-attack »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #166
baddox wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both education and taxation are higher level activities that fall under "crime and punishment." It's a crime to not pay taxes, or to not send your children to school, and the government punishes you if you commit those crimes.

> It's a crime to not pay taxes, or to not send your children to school, and the government punishes you if you commit those crimes. In the US (and a few other countries), homeschooling is legal. In addition, if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS might take your stuff or paycheck (as others here have said), not necessarily throw you in jail.

Homeschooling could easily be described as "sending your children to school" The mere fact that the school is located in your home doesn't really matter.

And plenty of people go to jail for tax fraud. Al Capone probably being the most notorious example.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#185

Post by austerity »

andyl wrote: post #160

I've lost many friends and family to drugs and alcohol. Tremendous loss. Most can use with no consequences, but not everyone. I believe legalization will result in more casualties.

Well, all the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. So by resisting the change you are helping inflict damage on more lives.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#186

Post by Renaud »

politician wrote: post #152
djur wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal limits for alcohol are pretty arbitrary. Someone who's driving way over the limit isn't going to get caught unless they're driving dangerously anyway.

> unless they're driving dangerously anyway "Driving dangerously" should be the metric. Not whether your body contains chocolate milk, weed, alcohol, oxycotin, aspirin, or whatever.

It's a pretty lousy 'after the facts' metric though. Driving dangerously is generally not visible until you're faced with a situation that requires all your attention, and then it's probably too late.

Too many people under the influence of alcohol or drugs are under the impression that because they can drive in a straight line and stop at red lights they are not dangerous and are being 'careful' and 'responsible', yet their judgement and reflexes are nonetheless impaired and this makes them dangerous.

Besides, you can't reasonably equate aspirin and chocolate to the dramatic effects that even a moderate amount of weed and alcohol have on your attention and brain response.

I'm all for the decriminalisation of drugs but I'm also in favour of zero tolerance if you choose to get behind the wheel.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#187

Post by icebraining »

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…

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.

Maybe in your case. I was seeing people badly damaged by drugs (alcohol and heroin, mostly). I also know the only reason some kicked the heroin addiction was because they were allowed to ask for help without fearing imprisonment, since drug usage is not a crime in my country.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#188

Post by iSnow »

javert wrote: post #54
sharkweek wrote: post #7

Two 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 sh…

> 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…

>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.

What's with the libertarians fondness for hyperbole? In common opinion, public health if firstly seen as a service the society provides in developed countries, especially if viewed in contrast with countries that do not have a functioning government. Secondly it is seen as based on rules. Yes, if you break every rule this amounts to crime down the road, but common belief in post-adolescents is that your precious personality is not constantly raped if you follow rules.

>Update: Most glaring example is Obamacare.

To most Europeans, Obamacare is simply the US catching up with other industrialized countries. I doubt anyone here except for a sub-percent minority sees this as the state stealing from its citizens by forcing them at gunpoint to pay up.

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#189

Post by ahomescu1 »

matt-attack wrote: post #184
ahomescu1 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a crime to not pay taxes, or to not send your children to school, and the government punishes you if you commit those crimes. In the US (and a few other countries), homeschooling is legal. In addition, if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS might take your stuff or paycheck (as others here have said), not necessarily throw you in jail.

Homeschooling could easily be described as "sending your children to school" The mere fact that the school is located in your home doesn't really matter. And plenty of people go to jail for tax fraud. Al Capone probably being the most notorious example.

Actually, AFAIK, Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion; Wesley Snipes is a good example of imprisonment for tax fraud. Those are related, but not strictly the same (for example, Wikipedia says that in Switzerland tax evasion is a misdemeanor, but tax fraud is an actual crime). I have no trouble believing that plenty of people go to prison for tax fraud.

It may seem like there's a thin line between them, but IMHO tax fraud requires a lot more effort and ill intent than tax evasion (it may even be possible to not even know all the taxes you have to pay, like use tax in some US states).

Re: The New York Times Calls for Marijuana Legalization

#190

Post by e40 »

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…

And yes, I've certainly had friends who are 40+ and barely hold down a job and live off friends and family because they were/are addicted to marijuana. It definitely happens, don't kid yourself.

Cause or effect?? Marijuana isn't addictive in the since that cigarettes and heroin are. It's highly likely that your friends that are unsuccessful are merely using marijuana to medicate for other issues.

Post reply on HN