Hacker News Reader

Everybody will have different answers, but when you change even one side of the cost/benefit equation, the answer can change.

For me, the cost of marijuana prohibition is too high and the benefits too low. Based on what I've seen in my life in those around me, I do think smoking marijuana a lot is a bad idea. I can't scientifically determine if it makes you spacey or if spacey people are drawn to it, but it doesn't seem to be a good sign overall. But, there are a lot of other equally dangerous or even more dangerous things that we don't legally prohibit, and while I think it's probably bad for you, it's not that bad for you. Consistent alcohol abuse certainly seems worse.

The other deciding factor for me personally is the addictiveness of a drug. Marijuana may be addictive, but I've seen people successfully quit, even without seeming to exert that much will power. I am much less inclined to legalize the drugs that snare you on the first hit, for two basic reasons: First, the very fact that they do ensnare you, and second, because if we legalize them today, the drugs that could be designed under a legalization regime are even more dangerous. I don't think I want to release the full power of a free-market economy on the task of producing a chemical that makes you feel good (and better yet requires repeated purchases); that's just asking for trouble.

Careful observers may note that tobacco as it stands now pretty much fails my test for legalization. As a practical matter it would have to be grandfathered in, but yes, I actually do think nicotine's demonstrated ability to snare you physiologically on the first hit is actually pretty dangerous and may really be on the wrong side of my personal legalization line.

well, of course recent research has linked the highly modified strains of marijuana (ie, very high THC, reduced companion and modifying compounds) with schizophrenia and other disorders. This has fatal consequences, as I can attest to. See: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/natureofthings/2010/downside...

This study smells of FUD. Has there been on overall spike in schizophrenia that one would expect? What's the sample size? What's the hypothesis on the mechanism (just saying correlation isn't good enough)? Etc.

It also has little to do with the debate over prohibition, since prohibition has done little to curb consumption but certainly incentivized stronger strains.

You can attest to the fatal consequences?

There is a trade off in this sort of policy. Prohibition leads to organized crime and violence in the black market. It also leads users into a world surrounded by crime and illegality and makes it harder to deal with addiction. On the other hand, legalization can make drugs more available and possibly enable more users. Hard drugs like meth and herion are extremely addictive and damaging. Many people never recover once addicted and seldom lead normal lives. Marijuana on the other hand does not share these traits to the same extreme. I think the tradeoff for marijuana is clearly on the legalization side. As for other hard drugs, the tradeoff is less clear whether society would be better off.

>The justifications used in your post are equally applicable to cocaine and to other drugs.

Cocaine was legal before it became illegal. What results il-legalization of cocaine have produced? More crime and more funding for crime organizations - check. What else? Look at the history of opium as well. And don't even start about LSD - the drug my reading about have discovered it having only positive benefits so far.

"Look at the history of opium as well."

You mean the fact that it was legal in China about 500 years ago and it nearly created an entire country of addicts?

Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal, yet there is still a black market for it.

I would also be interested to see "your reading" where LSD only had "positive benefits".

Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal

If you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal.

"f you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal."

Right..so why fight for other forms of it then?

Also, it didn't stop people from selling it on the black market (like so many proponents would like you to believe)

It may be legal, but not in the sense that access to it is unrestricted. I can't think of a situation where it is possible for a black market to exist for a legal and unrestricted product.

Not that I'm arguing for or against just enjoying seeing the opinion of other HN readers.

What researchers should do is look at the prevalence of black markets in states where pot is easy to get legally. In CO pot is easier to get legally than anything else other than alcohol or tobacco. I wonder what that has done for COs black market for pot.

> If you're using Vicodins legal status (requires prescription) as a comparison then pot and cocaine are already legal.

I believe in legalization, but this this is false (in the US at least). Pot is a Schedule I prohibited substance, Cocaine is a Schedule II prescription drug, and Vicodin is Schedule III. Each schedule carries with it a large difference in how available and legal a drug is.

"legal" is a spectrum, and vicodin is much more legal than pot or cocaine are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Sched...

While that is true on a federal level it is quite a bit different on a state level. In CO for example, pot is very simple to get legally. You can tell a doctor you have head aches, back pain, whatever and quickly get a pot card. When it comes to pot it is legally easier to get than an endless prescription of vicodin. At one point they had 'doctors' onsite at the pot dispensaries, but I think they may have recently changed that part.

You are right that cocaine is more strictly controlled than either of the other substances, but the original point I was making is that you can't use vicodin as an example of a legal substance when it's not freely available.

>it nearly created an entire country of addicts

An entire country of addicts was nearly created by a Big, i'd say Huge, Business + Government Corporation - Britain's East India Company. These and other addictive substances have existed through the history of human species. They become a huge problem only when big money and/or big power gets involved.

>Vicodin (another form of heroin) is legal, yet there is still a black market for it.

that your statement doesn't make sense - Vicodin is legal for prescribed purposes. People having Vicodin prescription don't buy it at black market. Vicodin is illegal for all other situations, and in these situations people go to black market.

Erm , no it wasn't. Opium was illegal in China which is part of the reason that China ended up at war with Britain where it was legal. Its totally unfair to use that as an argument for legalization since the problem was more complicated than that, but its also unfair to use it as an argument against legalization.

I have been saying for a while that we should just legalize all drugs, for excalty the same reasons outlined in Paul's post. I don't care what people do to their own bodies as long as it isn't harming anyone else. However, I can see a lot of anti-drug organizations and charities popping up to educate people on the dangers of heroin, etc. Hopefully that will give us the maximum freedom while also providing some good drug education to reduce the amount of heavy drug addictions.

I can't answer for the grandparent, but I would imagine it has to do with how he evaluates the dangerousness of these drugs relative to the consequences of their illegality.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's a significantly better state of being than what it is currently, as he said in his blog article. Marijuana is a large part of the market, so it will be a significant chunk. Marijuana is also more practical for people to say yes to than drugs such as heroin. One step at a time.