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

Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 431 posts

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#231

Post by lumisota »

rusk wrote: post #227
lumisota wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My argument is that the number of people who didn't vote doesn't need to be extrapolated: apathy isn't a yes or a no vote, but something else.

Are you sure it's apathy though? There are plenty of other reasons why somebody might not make it to the polling station. (EDIT: For example the elderly who have been shown to be overwhelmingly pro-brexit could have diffculty) All polling and analysis since the result bears out that the vote was indeed representative of the population.

Sure, it isn't just apathy (as in your example). But if you compare the turn-out for the Scottish independence vote in 2014 (~85%) with the EU referendum (~72%), I think it might be a considerable factor.

Another factor is complacency on the part of those that would have voted to remain: polling leading up to the referendum showed a clear remain win.

(I should point out that I'm not suggesting that the result of the referendum isn't pro-Brexit, but that the numbers don't support the case for a so-called "hard Brexit")

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#232

Post by ajeet_dhaliwal »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #73

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisatio…

I don't use cannabis but based on what the NHS has to say about it (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-body/cannabis-the-facts...) it's probably not a great idea to use it for most people. However it is important not to waste tax revenue going about trying to stop people in a heavy handed manner. The biggest issue with it seems to be around driving, much like alcohol. That is a real problem and people should be made aware that they should not drive under the influence.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#233

Post by doktrin »

flukus wrote: post #162
zachrose wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. The following flavor of comment has been made many times on HN, but since I’m halfway through Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow I’m in the mood for making it again here: The drug war has been “successful”, because its goal was to incarcerate, disenfranchise, extort, terrorize, and break apart the families of minori…

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

The US has unquestionably played an outsized role in shaping international drug policy over the last 100 years. I'm also pretty sure that the 'war on drugs' is a uniquely American phrase, and if it isn't it was certainly coined and popularised there.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#234

Post by GuB-42 »

mmt wrote: post #149
foolfoolz wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously we want to restrict access as much as possible to particular drugs, such as heroin or methamphetamine, which are so harmful and addictive that nobody should be using them, or GHB, where the potential for fatal overdose is so high. I dont understand this part. The potential for overdose on alcohol is high as well. I can go buy a plastic handle for $10 and if i drink the whole thing tonight i'll probably di…

> I dont understand this part. The potential for overdose on alcohol is high as well. I think that the point about GHB that most people miss is the concept of therapeutic index, a term borrowed from the medical world (I've also seen it called "safety ratio" in the context of recreational drugs, especially since they're not being used therapeutically). That is, the amount of GHB required to get the desired effect is v…

AFAIK, the biggest problem with GHB is its synergy with alcohol. Most GHB related deaths also involve alcohol.

GHB therapeutic index (8) is just slightly lower than alcohol (10). However, being an illegal substance, you don't really know how potent your stuff is. Ketamine is rather high (38).

And BTW, THC (cannabis) as a therapeutic index over 9000. LSD and psylocibin (magic mushrooms) are at 1000, which also makes them virtually impossible to overdose.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#235

Post by fredley »

titanix2 wrote: post #208
stabbles wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not legal, it's tolerated in law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedogen )

I which it isn’t. I’ve seen a high school friend falling into that gradually: he started speaking about cannabis to the point it became its only topic of conversation. Then of course he hanged only with people with similar interest. He became weird during the breaks and needed to smoke something, anything. After that when I went to the university he became a small dealer. He got enough money from that activity to ren…

Would making it illegal have prevented this?

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#236

Post by rusk »

lumisota wrote: post #231
rusk wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure it's apathy though? There are plenty of other reasons why somebody might not make it to the polling station. (EDIT: For example the elderly who have been shown to be overwhelmingly pro-brexit could have diffculty) All polling and analysis since the result bears out that the vote was indeed representative of the population.

Sure, it isn't just apathy (as in your example). But if you compare the turn-out for the Scottish independence vote in 2014 (~85%) with the EU referendum (~72%), I think it might be a considerable factor. Another factor is complacency on the part of those that would have voted to remain: polling leading up to the referendum showed a clear remain win. (I should point out that I'm not suggesting that the result of the…

Yes, as time goes by it seems as though sense is starting to sink in, though it is still quite close. A year ago I wouldn't have been confident at all.

[0] https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referen...

[1] https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/03/29/where-britain-stands-br...

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#237

Post by fredley »

maym86 wrote: post #90
toomanybeersies wrote: post #73

Meanwhile in Britain, the former leader of the Conservative Party, William Hague, spoke out and claimed that the war on cannabis had been "irreversibly lost". He was quickly shut down by Theresa May, who categorically ruled out legalisation or even decriminalisation [1]. I don't understand how politicians can stand up and claim that legalisation would have substantial negatives, when every experiment with legalisatio…

Seems like with weed it's just a matter of time but in the case of the conservative government why change it if their older voter base isn't asking for it and a portion of them would have a negative reaction if they did. I guess they think the risk of loosing some of their base is too high. I love the work of David Nutt, who was fired from the role of Government drug advisor in the UK for trying to change the governm…

I recently read David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air, which turned out to be very timely. A fantastic book that really sets out the case for evidence-based classification (and legalisation) of drugs, based on the approach of minimising harm (not minimising drug-use).

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#238

Post by flukus »

Arnt wrote: post #189
flukus wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

The war on drugs is "very international" if you describe any and every kind of law enforcement as "war". Cannabis is illegal in many countries, including one where a past minister of justice told a story about how he'd been offered cannabis by another parent at his children's school. The parent who offered was a senior policeman. That isn't war.

As opposed to the country leading the charge with a president that "didn't enhale": https://www.google.com.au/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4711887/b...

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#240

Post by ada1981 »

flukus wrote: post #162
zachrose wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Drug prohibition has been a categorical failure in every outcome it was intended to achieve. The following flavor of comment has been made many times on HN, but since I’m halfway through Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow I’m in the mood for making it again here: The drug war has been “successful”, because its goal was to incarcerate, disenfranchise, extort, terrorize, and break apart the families of minori…

This is a very US centric view but the war on drugs is very international. Cannabis is illegal in most of the world where Americas race relations simply aren't issues, so I really don't buy into this reasoning. This is good old moral superiority at work.

The parent comment is correct.

It’s not even a controversial position, as it’s been stated publically by the people who crafted and implemented the legislation that this was the stated aim.

And the US demanded that other countries adopt our drug policy laws and they followed our lead.

This cognitive censorship is something to be outraged about - flies directly in the face of the Establishment Clause of the first Amemdment and is deeply detrimental to our democracy.

Even William F. Buckley was against the War On Drugs.

What we ought to pour those resources into is a “War on Trauma” (if we still require branding things as a ‘war’ to garner political support.)

Trauma is what underpins the majority of mental health issues including depression, suicide, and addiction.

Drugs without trauma isn’t a problem, it’s when the drugs become a proxy for self regulation that we run into issues.

Post reply on HN