Hacker News Reader

Comment by cassowary | Hacker News Reader

I am sceptical of these kinds of changes. Why is it that governments are going to such trouble to essentially eliminate tobacco, but they are permitting another problematic drug? And it's usually the same side of politics who wants to get rid of tobacco, as wants to introduce marijuana! On the face of it it's strange.

I guess the only thing good about this is it might make it easier to see whether cannabis might cause schizophrenia in certain at-risk populations. :/

View on HN

There's a strong difference between 'taxed highly and discouraged' vs 'criminal charges and prison time'. The first is a way to promote a healthy society while still allowing some freedom. The other, well, we've seen how well it works.

Frankly, I expect the average price a person pays for a gram of pot will double when this is over- but people will still pay it for the same reason people buy vodka rather than making moonshine or homemade beer.

I'd actually to see this go the way of the LCBO -- high taxes on Marijuana sales that feed into the single-payer healthcare system; you can only buy it from government-owned stores; and there are extensive campaigns to help with addiction, and stigma/fees for smoking it in non-smoking areas.

There was tons of marijuana being smoked in my high school in Toronto, although I didn't realize what it was until I'd been to Dolores Park in SF a few times. People already consume it; may as well tax it and treat it like any other public health issue.

I'm curious why you think centralized government control of it would be a good thing?

I don't find that the LCBO is particularly great, as it severely limits available choice. I'm a collector of bourbon, and the only way to expand my collection is to visit the US and purchase it there, since the LCBO only carries maybe 5 brands, and does not allow importation via mail.

If there was an independent liquor store, they could perhaps specialize in a way the LCBO can't.

Don't think of it as legalising another drug; think of it as expanding the rights of a person to own their own body. What right does the State have to legalise and promote one drug but put another in jail for a different drug. Do we own our own bodies or not? These morality laws are from a different era and need to be removed. Drugs are here to stay so lets be sensible about their use.

As for schizophrenia... it's funny that people think that cannabis use is a recent thing. Do you realise that cannabis has been used for centuries and if there was a solid causation between cannabis and schizophrenia you would see the effects now. Also no one has disproved the theory that schizophrenics and other mental health sufferers naturally gravitate to cannabis to ease their symptoms.

Considering the effects, one seems much safer than the other. Are you saying that schizophrenia rates from smoking pot are higher than cancers and lung issues from cigarettes?

You think smoke from marijuana isn't harmful to your lungs? Particularly as it's often inhaled as deeply as possible?

Quantity of smoke inhaled is several orders of magnitude smaller than with cigarettes. There's some evidence to suggest that, whether due to quantity or other factors, smoking marijuana casually does not substantially harm lung function[1].

[1]: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/casual-marijuana-...

You sound like a tobacco company executive in the 1960s. No way is inhaling smoke not harmful to your lungs.

It definitely is, but there are also compounds in marijuana that seem to inhibit cancers (citation needed). From memory, the result is that you can still get lung cancer, but the rate of it is much lower than would be expected.

Tobacco companies said the opposite of what their studies showed--so they lied.

Claiming that marijuana is typically smoked orders of magnitude less than cigarettes is not at all a lie but is truly one of the main reasons marijuana doesn't lead to the same lung cancer rates as cigarettes.

Back of the napkin math: Imagine the average smoker smokes a pack of cigarettes a day. 20 cigarettes in a pack and 15 drags per cigarette = 300 drags of smoke per day.

A moderate (or even heavy) marijuana user smokes a bowl or two per day and takes ~4 hits per bowl = 8 drags a day.

Plus marijuana is not addictive like cigarettes so the number of casual marijuana users who can remain once-in-a-while partakers is much higher than with cigarettes. And if funds are tight it's easier for people to stop spending their money on marijuana than on cigarettes. Marijuana's cost on society is overall a lot lower than the societal cost of cigarettes.

Just for some perspective here because I'm not ashamed of myself...

Two bowls per day I'd consider light usage (less than a bowl a day I'd say is very light, or occasional). Heavy users are smoking over an ounce a week, which is greater than an eighth a day. That's quite a few more than two bowls.

At my height I was smoking between 8-12 king size spliffs per day. Though a spliff is mixed with tobacco.

I was a very heavy user, but I was also not that exceptional for the area (PDX).

I still smoke, even though it's likely bad for me. Like drinking, you don't do it for the positive health effects, you do it because it's fun, social, or you simply want to...

you're the cannabis equivalent of a 3 pack a day tobacco smoker. the very high end of extremely heavy usage. the average cannabis user is probably smoking like 1 joint per week, honestly. a daily user maybe smokes 1 joint per day. very few people have jobs where they can be stoned all day.

Do you have any facts to back this up? I just don't think the average marijuana user only uses a single joint in a week. I've known a lot of people who smoke and that amount seems off.

And a lot more people than you'd expect are stoned all day. You just can't tell because they're past the giggling munchies phase of smoking.

I really wish I had better data I could link to you. Just reporting my intuition based on personal experience, and knowing a lot of cannabis users. For obvious reasons, it's not so easy to find good methodically rigorous longitudinal studies of cannabis use.

What do you base this opinion on?

If I have one toot of a joint, am I going to get lung cancer? No? Then what is going to happen to me?

According to studies I've seen, it's similar for cases of more mechanical damage to the lungs and a way lower rate of lung cancer. (With different studies showing either increase or decrease for pot smokers) https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.04846 has a nice review. Or in other words: doesn't matter what I think - let's talk controlled studies instead!

So sure, it's still harmful, but with fewer bad effects, and as far as LE goes, definitely a positive step for society.

You cannot use harm as an argument unless you also include tobacco, alcohol, and opiates. These are the drugs that kill directly and indirectly. We know this, we've known this for decades, and yet they are still legal.

And if it is harmful to smoke, so what? The State allows me to drink 10 bourbon bottles a night, or 10 packs of cigs, or 10 large pizzas now. Do we own our bodies or not?

Although what happens when liver damage and cancer occur? Are you driving up healthcare costs and premiums for all?

Yes, and the State and society is fine with that judging by the fact that we understand the severe consequences of tobacco, alcohol, and opiates and they remain legal. For example, we know that in 2015 over 10,000 fatalities occurred on the roads due to alcohol and, once again, we are fine with the human tragedy and increased healthcare costs.

It does not need to be smoked. It can be eaten, or vaporized, or mixed into a liquid.

But smoking isn't the only way to consume cannabis. Vaporisers are becoming increasingly popular, as well as edibles and tinctures.

I'm just saying if your brownies are smoking you're baking them wrong.

Edited to add I like trying new things and I've tried several THC-free "hemp based" energy drinks and I would assume there is no great technical effort required to merely remove the "THC-free" characteristic. This simplifies the topic to the existing "war on energy drinks" which is a whole nother topic. When I eat something unhealthy and non-paleo I like to try something new and good, if I take a diet vacation its not going to be at McDonalds drinking a Pepsi.

>Considering the effects, one seems much safer than the other. Are you saying that schizophrenia rates from smoking pot are higher than cancers and lung issues from cigarettes?

There is actually zero evidence linking pot and schizophrenia. What studies have been done showed that there was a very tenuous link between marijuana use and the initial onset of symptoms in those predisposed already, but that the overall rates were unnafected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com