Live data from Hacker News

Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

bbc.co.uk

341–350 of 431 posts

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#341
post #142

One of the topics that hasn't yet been mentioned (which surprises me, especially for HN), which I believe I saw originally when this legalization was still merely being proposed was how it would affect medical/pharmaceutical research. With such national legalization, an entire developed nation (with relatively diverse genetic backgrounds, even) will be open to clinical trials. Besides finally providing ammunition to…

The sheer number of miraculous properties currently being attributed to cannabis leaves me skeptic. It went too quickly from "an anti-emetic/anti-nausea to combat side-effects of cancer treatment" to the secret of vitality and longevity.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#342
post #223

I wonder how police forces will react.. imagine spending a lot of time checking people and probably dealing with tensions and now no more controls, all is fine (sic)

Possession has been sort of de-facto decriminalized in Canada for many years - police just don't enforce the law.

This is only true in major metro areas -- that is, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto. Most smaller cites/towns or rural regions are far less tolerant.

(In fact, differential enforcement by regional police departments was one of the more compelling arguments in favour of decriminalization.)

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Canadian and I think legalization is the right choice, but I think there is some dishonesty on both sides, which is doing everyone a disservice. The anti-cannabis people will say it's a "gateway drug" and that it will destroy your life, while some elements on the the pro-cannabis side would have you believe it's some sort of panacea. The reality is that it can cause intense anxiety and paranoia in some people, an…

Absolutely - this is an example case where the legal status of the drug I don't think would have made a difference, the drug clearly had a profound effect on this individual. Cannabis is by no means a safe drug (no drugs are 100% safe), but it does tend to get painted as either black or white by either side. The politicisation of the issue makes it hard to have a rational discussion around drug risks, and harms, espe…

> but were made illegal a few years ago - amid moral panic).

Everyone started to take the piss which didn't help. Big signs up in shops "MAGIC MUSHROOMS FOR SALE". For years they had been available, under the counter with no problems, but when it became blatant, the end was sure to come.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#344
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck convincing the Supreme Court to upend the basis of a huge portion of federal law and decades of judicial precedence in favor of very broad readings of the enumerated powers.

The supreme court has never ruled against the use of drugs for religious purposes in a broad sense, so there's that at least.

This case seems to poke a hole in the religious exercise loophole right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith#F...

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#345
post #253
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all sexual deviations We're currently in the middle of the long process of realising that a lot of things that were thought to be harmful or ""degenerate"" actually aren't, and that more harm is done in suppressing them; conversely a whole range of ""normal"" behaviour is non-consensual and actually harmful.

Maybe the line should be like they have over in Czechia - weed is illegal but police ignores it for single individuals as necessary evil addressing human weakness, but prosecutes sellers and manufacturers. So the "hard line" is given, i.e. legally the line is not pushed more towards hard drugs as next generation might argue "we have weed legal, why not heroin? It only affects some people!", pushing the line further,…

> It could be local optima, there could be much better optimas, but it's hard to predict if a given step leads to another optima or wrecks the whole civilization like the Chinese population addiction during Opium wars.

Ask yourself, why is it that almost every society on the planet had access to opium during this time period, but it was only the Chinese who suffered government destabilizing consequences as a result of opium availability?

The answer is that opium was weaponized in China by the British. The British government (along with some rather wealthy US citizens) essentially forced opium onto the Chinese population in an attempt to equalize trade deficits. This was effective at not only re-balancing trade in favor of the British, but also weakened the Chinese population considerably, allowing for Britain to more easily control the population.

You know what happened whenever the Chinese government was finally like, "hey this stuff is harming our population, we're going to attempt to curtail the widespread consumption of opium"? The British intervened with full military might, crushing the Chinese resistance and forcing the continued exploitation of the Chinese people. Twice.

The reason opium was so destructive to the social fabric of 19th century China is that opium was weaponized, and as a result it fulfilled the role of any other weapon.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I prefer the American side more. It has a more park like feel to it where you can enjoy the falls while sitting on the lawn, away from car honks and road noise. The Canadian side seems like an urban jungle with the waterfalls take a side step to tall hotel buildings and casinos.

The Canadian side is relatively developed (vs american side) and an economic engine (tourism, jobs, wines). Your parent commenter's point I believe is that the federal/state/local government has failed the local people in investing and developing a local economy in the area. Both sides have essentially the same resources (the falls), but one side is doing better (economically) than the other.

And the point made by (now) parent is that a preference for less resource exploitation and economic development can be a lifestyle decision, not a failure of governance. Not everyone wants to turn their town into a tourist hub.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of this can be attributed to these drugs being used in a completely ad hoc manner. There's no usage guidelines on a bag of cocaine. There's no 'Active Ingredient' percentage listed. You dont know what it is. You can't compare it to another until you've had it. Any pill that's an upper is called 'molly' Somehow the vast majority of people who take legal hard drugs such as vicodin or dilaudid, don't overd…

> legal hard drugs such as vicodin Isn't vicodin designed in such a way that the secondary ingredient would kill you before you'd get high on the primary one?

I have no idea how Vicodin was designed; however, paracetamol (acetaminophen) wouldn't do that. It is liver toxic in higher doses, and can certainly kill your liver and you eventually, but that takes weeks.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#348

Canada now has a huge head start in the West for business to develop legitimate markets that will have a strong hold for decades. I wonder how many U.S. businesses will move because of this. We all know where the money will be.

California, where marijuana is now legal since last year, has a greater population than all of Canada.

Related to that, each Canadian province has the ability to further regulate marijuana (within guidelines). Thus, there isn't one Canadian market, but a bunch of smaller markets.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#349
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of all of the scapegoating of the EU for local policies and outright fiction like banana curve standards. Ironically the actual things to object to the EU about like their godawful internet policy proposals aren't on the radar. Anyway UK has parliamentary supremacy so a constitution would be empty words without changing that. I would say that the policy seems very dangerous but constituions are messy in te…

Imagine if nasty old bits like not allowing Jews to inherit property got embedded Seems like a strawman, but I guess if that were the case it would have been amended out years ago ...

Semantics about strawmen applied to history aside it still would have added significant friction to it. Antisemitism was downright fashionable until WW2 and it could have impeded more gradual progress like the first Jewish member of parliament. It can be changed but it is significantly harder and easily can wind up judged "not worth the effort". Just look at how long it has been since the US ratified an amendment to the constitution.

Re: Canada legalises recreational cannabis use

#350

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…

> 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…

I know HN likes to simplify complex issues so that they can tie a nice bow on it, but claiming the driver of drug prohibition is incarceration of minorities is a massive and inaccurate simplification.

Were there people who had racist views about drug use? Sure. Is that the main reason why we have drug prohibition? No.

Post reply on HN