Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewstuart | Hacker News Reader

Pot is still illegal in Australia because, you know, it's bad.

http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/02/10/australia-medical-mari...

> The bill that would legalize cultivation of Australia medical marijuana is guaranteed to become law, with the main opposition party immediately pledging support

This is annoying though because it is nothing more than a step towards legalisation based on pseudo-science (since there isn't any great evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in treating anything). Why can't we go straight to legalisation without all the wasted time and money used on the whole "medical" cannabis step?

It's a path that worked in USA, so (social) science endorses this policy path

But alcohol is, you know, grrrreeeat!

You're confusing alcohol with, you know, Frosted Flakes.

Isn't sugar known to be just as addictive and almost as harmful as alcohol these days?

Ban oxygen. Approximately 93% of all people who have ever consumed it, even once, have died.

Oxygen is necessary to you living... sugar not so much.

Sugars are as necessary for your body to work as oxygen is [1]. Of course, you don't have to take them as refined sugar, there are much better ways.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose#Energy_source

That's why I said "not so much" because this is referring to refined sugar.

Refined sugar is still nutritious. The human body even has an enzyme (called sucrase) specifically for breaking down sucrose into glucose and fructose. The glucose can go right into the bloodstream or be stored in the liver as glycogen. The fructose portion is processed by the liver, where it is eventually stored as fat.

Given the near-universal appeal of the taste of fructose, as well as historical relevance of fruit to the human diet, makes it seem reasonable to believe that humans are well-evolved to tolerate reasonable levels of fructose without suffering any ill-effects. Even moderate amounts of stored body fat are fine.

Alcohol, meanwhile, is not a nutrient. Most humans have a strong aversion to its taste and must train themselves to consume it and even then the flavor is often heavily disguised. Although the body can derive some energy from ethanol, this is only by way of a complex metabolic process that can cause serious acute and chronic liver problems[1][2]; not to mention the risks of alcohol poisoning. The pleasurable, euphoric effects of blood alcohol serve no physiological benefit and directly interfere with cognitive and motor functions. While there may be some potential ancillary benefits of moderate drinking on cardiovascular health [3], the mechanisms and parameters of this are still not well-known or well understood.

[1] "Acute Alcohol-Induced Liver Injury" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372892/

[2] "Alcohol-Related Liver Disease" http://www.liverfoundation.org/abouttheliver/info/alcohol/

[3] "Alcohol and Heart Disease" http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/alcohol-and-hear...

The fact that we have one terrible substance that is legal isn't a justification to legalize another.

you're right. however, pot is less terrible than alcohol in basically every way.

except that alcohol currently and historically has generated huge tax revenue. if i were the alcohol lobby, i would make damn sure than no other drugs become legal and taxed.

That's why we should follow the Dana Carvey plan for marijuana: "Legalize it, tax the shit out of it."

(I believe Carvey originally made this statement about prostitution, but I'm not sure.)

Pot isn't a terrible substance. Especially not when compared to alcohol.

Frosted Flakes though man, not even once

That's always a question of proportion. It's all in the mix. It's sure carcinogenic and surely beats the lung up in a lot of ways. It also does statistically, by my own observation, lead to a significant lack of all kinds of activities.

For example, it frequently leads to a lack of believe in - or even just consideration for - how terrible substance consumption is, over all if not for the sake of nutrition.

Also if you are prone to developing a psychotic disorder (prevalence of psychotic disorders is ~3%), pot consumption before the age of 20 increases the chances of it happening.

Which is probably just a consequence of other complications.

This is a fairly neutral review of the literature:

http://cannabisandpsychosis.ca/more-information/what-do-we-k...

there is not a single source given, just wiki links

There are plenty of sources and the original papers are easily found, but there isn't a proper bibliography with links which I agree is frustrating. For example the first one says the last name of the author and the year: Andreasson and 1987. So I googled "Andreasson 1987 cannabis" and found the article:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

Hope this helps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com