Nevada becomes fifth US state to allow cannabis sales for recreational purposes

That's universally ignored on HN. Almost nobody on here ever wants to talk about the fact that ~97% of all the people that were put into prison under the war on drugs over the last 40 years, went into government prisons to benefit government agendas & employees. It's very, very, very aggressively ignored here, and the sole response you'll usually get if you do bring up the actual facts of the situation, is heavy downvoting (you won't get much discussion unfortunately).

It is. For some reason people focus on private prisons. Government run prisons aren't much better.

Afaik, my state has no private prisons. They do have 25,000 prison guards who are a powerful lobby in the state legislature.

Although I know many individual cops who can't wait for legalisation. They're tired of wasting time on weed when heroin and opioids are destroying whole communities.

For Nevada Question 2 of the $3,771,500 spent in opposition $3,650,000 (96.7%) of that came from Sheldon Adelson. https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Quest...

For California Prop 64 of the $2,077,438 spent in opposition $1,364,000 (65.6%) came from Julie Schauer.

The only other major donor was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action) which donated $489,150 (23.5%)

The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council donated $25,000 (1.2%) and the Peace Officers Research Association of Claifornia PIC donated $25,000 (1.2%).

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana...

In both cases the majority of support for the opposition came from a SINGLE WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL - not "private individuals."

I am not sure if the Teamsters directly represent police officers but they are a union and Peace Officers Research Association sounds police related so you are right that some vaguely "police" and "union" related groups did donate a relatively insignificant 2.4% to the opposition campaign, but that is it.

A pharma company was the largest donor to an anti-marijuana legalization movement in AZ.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/03/big-pharma-m...

Well, this is a cultural connection, and it probably could have gone either way

(Not denying it is the case, still, it's very curious it ended up that way)

>Politicians also love the government prison complex. It supports their power by making sure taxes remain artificially high, which keeps their slush funds higher, and they can basically build jobs in their voting districts with government prisons.

This doesn't make any sort of accounting sense. This doesn't keep taxes "artificially" high. That money is collected in taxes because there is a very expensive program that needs to be funded. There no greater opportunity for embezzlement in your scenario than out of your scenario.

Your argument is fine without this claim, though. LEO unions are profoundly fucked up institutions.

I'll play Devil's advocate here. Suppose you want to consume a drug that is currently criminalized, you need to think past the toll on only your body. You need to consider the toll to society. The retail price you pay includes the salaries of gangsters who commit murders and help perpetuate a culture of violence. It encourages other unrelated crime, because it helps set up infrastructure required by criminals, like easy access to guns. It includes the bribes that are given to law enforcement and other public officials who then subvert some of the rules and laws that are the basis of our society. To a lesser extent, since your transaction won't be taxed, there's a small hit to society compared to if you chose a legal high instead.

None of these points would apply if those hard drugs are legalised and regulated, of course. At that point, I'm less certain about the right thing to do. Should the government sell clean versions of ecstacy, heroin or any of the other million synthetics available? I honestly don't know.

Antibiotics are a good example; they only work when their usage is very carefully prescribed.

I buy the thrust of your argument, but please note that it really does require a more multi-dimensional analysis.

well i can't help but upvote said arguments because there's a lot of truth to them tbh. even if racism isn't inherently part of the system, it's still widely present in those that enact the rules of it!

I do not have sources that directly detail the negative effects of smoking Marijuana on people under 25, but the prefrontal cortex of the brain does not fully develop until then. It would be possible to furiously Google supporting studies, but I have limited interest in doing so.

I apologize for alarming you, but that said (and with absolutely zero judgment or gratuitous negativity) I highly encourage you to reduce your consumption of Marijuana for your own sake.

Symlinkk- As someone who smoked daily at roughly the same age as you, I can understand your concern. I smoked almost daily for about four consecutive years, starting around 21, and ending around 25. Looking back on that period, I had numerous negative side effects, and it's hard for me to know how much that's perpetuated in the last 6 years since I moved towards closer to a once a month usage level, with long stretches of total abstinence mixed in there.

A few things you should consider. First, is it an addiciton? Addicitions typically manifest themselves in situations where you can't quit using your substance, or change your behavior, despite negative consequences. Smoking for two consecutive years definitely makes it a habit, but I obviously can't comment on whether it's a full on addiction for you.

If you don't feel like you can stop, I'd recommend seeking help. There are likely local MA (marijuana anonymous) or NA (narcotics anonymous) meetings near you, and those support networks can be very helpful for a lot of people.

My father died from at 60 due to heavy alcohol consumption, and was more prepared to die than entertain the thought of no longer drinking. Addiction is a remarkably challenging disease, which can warp ones decision making massively, so if you don't believe you can fairly answer the question, you should think about asking those around you how they see it impacting you.

Wishing you all the best as you seek some answers.

Smoking anything is going to cause harm. If subjectively you don't feel it's impacting your life in a negative way, then go for it, but consider other methods like vaping or edibles.

Aside from the physical effects, quite possibly long-term but not conclusively proven to be the case (afaik), one reason to be extra-wary of heavy smoking < 25 is really all the usual stuff: lethargy, developing addiction/dependency, social and career stagnation. These can have a pretty negative effect at any age, but at a younger age the effects compound and end up much worse.

The things you learn and experience in your twenties are often crucial preparation for how you'll doing in your thirties and beyond. If much of that time is spent being high and doing little, you'll pay the price later on.

Basically, my experience (personal, and looking at friends and acquaintances) is that chronic, daily smoking often results in being 'stuck in place'. Getting stuck in the jobs, friendships, experiences, and relationships that dominate your early twenties is probably not a desirable outcome. On the other hand, a seventy-year-old picking up a weed habit probably won't suffer much from it. At any point in between I'd still argue it's better not to chronically dull your brain, but hey if you're happy do whatever you want!

That said, obviously this doesn't apply to everyone. But I know a number of daily smokers who started early, and with few exceptions they are not very happy or successful thirty-somethings (by any metric they or I care about).

Legalisation of cannabis in the UK is politically toxic. Many people buy info the 'drugs are bad, OK?' rhetoric that has been trotted out for decades, as well as the sensationalist rubbish that is spewed forth by hate rags like the Daily Mail.

For some - even intelligent people - it's so firmly ngrained that it's impossible to even have a sensible discussion about it.

Sadly, I don't think we'll see meaningful medical usage any time soon, let alone recreational.

There's a pretty intuitive difference between moonshine and a banana.

The sun also helps your skin produce anti-cancer compounds, and the obsessive use of sunglasses and high-SPF sunscreens may have the opposite result.

Everything is bad for you with a vengeance.

Not to mention high-risk activities like driving a car, downhill skiing, skydiving, or scuba diving (or various "extreme sports") which are perfectly legal but can easily kill you, cause brain damage, paralysis, and sometimes inflict the same or worse on some innocent victim.

Few if any people will heap extreme moral outrage on people who engage in such risky activities, but if someone dares light up a joint or god forbid consume some other illegal drug, they're a dirty druggie who should be thrown to rot in jail, where (if they don't get killed outright during the raid on their home) they are likely to suffer rape, torture, or other human rights abuses. On top of that they face having their home and other possessions confiscated and a felony keep them from getting good jobs for the rest of their life once they're released (if they manage to survive jail).

Can you even imagine anyone suggesting such a fate for someone who merely chose to drive a car or ski?

> Semantically, everything is bad for you. Fruits are high in sugar, the sun gives you cancer.

Generally life is bad for you, because all life ends at some point.

It's really difficult to dose right if you eat it. You can easily take too much and have a really horrible experience.

At Burning Man, there is a large presence of law enforcement officers with conservative attitudes. Both uniformed and plainclothes. The plainclothes officers especially create an atmosphere of distrust regarding substances.