Hacker News Reader

> Call me old fashioned

No, its not really a matter of being old fashioned - it's a matter of being authoritarian.

> but I do not think that a society that smokes weed is better than a society that does not.

The society that doesn't forbid people who want to smoke to do so is better because it is more free. That is valuable in itself, although this point seems to have fallen out of fashion on HN these days.

> is better because it is more free

Citation needed. Freedom isn't all it's made out to be. I'd much rather give up the freedom to consume hard drugs than live free in a society filled with drug addicts. Likewise I'm happy to forgo the freedom to own a gun if it means nobody else in my community has one.

> I'd much rather give up the freedom to consume hard drugs than live free in a society filled with drug addicts.

Except western society is filled with drug addicts despite having the freedom to consume removed.

People are going to consume drugs and develop maladaptive coping mechanisms of one sort or another regardless of what's legal or not.

Personal freedom is great because people aren't punished for having personal issues.

This exchange is really interesting to me because it's really exactly the exchange that I've seen between Americans and Japanese people when they talk about a variety of topics (not just drugs). Americans (and to a certain extent people from some other western countries) seem to really value freedom culturally. It is to the point where even contemplating exchanging some freedom to gain something else is just obviously morally wrong without having to go through the necessity of justifying it.

I often say that one of the reasons why many Americans (and British people as well) have difficulty in Japan is because both American (and British) culture are heavily moral, but that they have completely different values than Japanese culture. Both think the other completely immoral at times.

The general Japanese response to the general American comment that people must be free is that individual's must not be selfish. The idea is that you decide as a community what kind of society you want and everybody has to be unselfish and give up some personal freedom to achieve this.

I get along well in Japan mainly because this is the kind of culture I enjoy. I get very frustrated in the freedom loving, but ultimately comparatively selfish environment of my origin, Canada.

>Both think the other completely immoral at times.

What kind of things in Japan or Japanese culture do Westerners think is outright immoral?

The absolute biggest one is lying to your face :-) In Japan, it is really impolite to be overly critical of people or to act in an unfriendly manner. Everybody you meet will be nice to you and if you say, "I like underwater basket weaving" they will say, "Oh yes. That is very interesting" and smile. If you unintentionally force them into a confrontation like by saying, "Do you really think it is interesting? Do you like underwater basket weaving too", they will say, "Oh yes. I like underwater basket weaving" just to escape the conversation.

One of the side effects of this is that people can be super friendly to you, but you never really know if they like you or not. I have an ex colleague who was very helpful to me when I moved here. He looked out for me and even invited me to his home for dinner many, many times. He hooked me up with local groups, etc, etc. He even occasionally still asks me to go to some local events these days. But I'm pretty sure he hates my guts. He doesn't even send me a new years card even though I send him one (which seems like a pretty weird criteria for judging if someone likes you or not, but...)

You just don't know. People will never tell you outright stuff like this and they will "lead you on". Virtually every expat I've known who has problems in Japan loves to jump on this issue. "People here are false", they will say. "You can't trust them. They will lie to your face." There is a concept called "tatemae" which is the face that you have to present to society and it's a concept that rubs many westerners completely the wrong way.

Personally, I like it. I don't care one iota if my ex colleague likes me or not. He's been incredibly helpful to me. He treats me really well. He's been nothing other than a massive positive force in my life. Yeah, it's a shame we can't be friends, but that's life. Everybody treats me well here. Everybody is friendly. Everybody is nice to each other and treats you as if you are a friend, even if they don't know you -- even if they hate you.

But... yeah... it takes some getting used to and some people really don't like it.

>I have an ex colleague who was very helpful to me when I moved here. He looked out for me and even invited me to his home for dinner many, many times. He hooked me up with local groups, etc, etc. He even occasionally still asks me to go to some local events these days. But I'm pretty sure he hates my guts.

Why would he do these things for you if he doesn't have to? Obviously, he doesn't have time to do this for everyone, so does he have some incentive to expend this energy on you? Does being nice to you help him out in some way?

The principle behind what you’re saying really makes a lot of sense when we aren’t talking about law and the government. Freedom to self destruct isn’t of much help to anyone. All things being equal, we might be better off in a world where drugs just didn’t exist. The same is true when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes. It might even be true of guns.

This is a circumstance we can create as a society through disapproval and gentle encouragement towards something else. The government is more limited in its means, though: if we want to get rid of smoking with the government, for example, then we are de facto going to be putting people in jail over nothing. Maybe it starts with a fine but if a fine is big enough to hurt there will be poor people who can’t pay and they will end up with tax problems and then with jail time.

This whole concept of using the government to foster every desirable positive social outcome leads to authoritarianism and it’s a mistake. There are other organs of society we need to bring to bear, both to see the changes we want and to balance out the government itself.

> I'd much rather give up the freedom to consume hard drugs than live free in a society filled with drug addicts

It's interesting that you wrote this in first person. You can give up whatever freedoms you want, I don't care. But what you are actually saying is that you want to take those freedoms from others too.

For some things that might be worth considering - freedom is very valuable but perhaps not infinitely so. But there needs to be an actual argument - "I don't desire that freedom so I don't want anyone to have it" is not it.

> No, its not really a matter of being old fashioned - it's a matter of being authoritarian.

Interesting line of thought, but how far do you take it? Legalize all drugs, even the ones that may end up killing people, or make them completely dependent?

A society that values Freedom needs to ensure its people remain free, and there are clearly substances out there that can make you a slave. How do you deal with that?

Yes legalise all of them like Portugal did, but spend all of the enforcement budget on rehabilitation and re-integrating addicts into society.[1]

What makes a drug addictive is not the substance itself, but the environment which surrounds the 'addict'. An environment that is poor in social connections and purpose makes drugs more addictive to the users.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park

This is a common misconception that Portugal legalized all drugs. They decriminalized personal drug use and possession of low quantities.

Drug use is still illegal. The difference is that you won't face justice and you won't go to prison. Instead, you will face a commission and they may send you to a rehabilitation center, or fine you for a reasonable amount.

Drug trafficking is still a crime which carries heavy penalties.

>Legalize all drugs, even the ones that may end up killing people, or make them completely dependent?

Yes, and then use the massive amount of money that goes to militarizing police and incarcerating none violent drug offenders for public health services such as counselors, rehabilitation, safe usage areas, HIV/hep testing, etc

> Interesting line of thought, but how far do you take it?

That's a good question and a correct perspective for arguing these kinds of policies. The answer is "as far as possible".

Personal freedom should be default starting position. If it is going to be taken away it should be done in a way that is as minimal as possible while getting the best bang for the buck in terms of minimizing actual harm (with actual evidence backing it up).

"I don't like other people doing drugs, so we should put them in jail for that" does not meet this standard (or any standard worthy of it's name, to be frank).

"People will harm themselves by doing drugs so we will ruin their lives and put them in jail while spending way more money than it would take to actually help them" also doesn't meet this standard.

Do you really think it's ethical to use violence against people who consume a certain plant or substance merely because they happen to live in a culture that doesn't approve of that?

To me it seems extremely likely that drugs and their legalization will ultimately be put in the same category as the legalization of homosexuality or the freedom of speech

Exactly. The phenomenon exists, either way.

The only difference is society’s attitude toward it.

The phenomenon also results in huge costs that the individual ends up imposing on society. I'm not saying that means the substance must be banned. But clearly there's a difference between freedom of speech/association, and freedom to consume addictive substances, and maybe that freedom ought to be modulated according to how addictive the substance is.

The huge costs are close to 100% related to policing something extremely difficult to police. And of course these costs are somoene’s profit. The DEA still insists that cannabis should be a schedule I drug, but to them these costs are profit and job security, another example how measuring success via profit corrupts then original purpose of an institution.

Similarly, if we were to outlaw red underwear or parsley, individuals who chose these things would incur similar costs.

Or were you referring to something else?

1) Drug problems still exist in those countries. Albeit it’s different than say, the US, pretending that it doesn’t exist doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

2) I’m not saying the attitude toward weed in japan should be the same as in the US, but having this amount of social stigma is ridiculous. It’s absurd when you consider just how much Koreans and Japanese people drink. It’s way more than Americans, and at least in Korea it’s mandatory after work for a lot of people.

3) Legalizing marijuana (even just for medical use) will not create or worsen any existing drug issues.

1) That's true. Let's that it's barely a problem.

2) According to the WHO, Korea only drinks marginally more that the US, and Japan less: https://www.who.int/gho/alcohol/en/. TBH, this is a bit of a stereotype.

I'm confused by how to interpret 3. Are you saying:

- "If it's only for medical use, then it will not worsen the situation". I would overall agree with you on this.

- "Even if it's freely available it will not worsen the situation". I don't believe this. I don't see how going from a situation where smoking is 1: illegal, 2: actually complex (unlike in Europe/North America), 3: extremely risky on the legal side, 4: socially taboo, to a situation where you can have shops on the street would not worsen drug issues. I can't find any studies has been conducted in any comparable societies, so we are both speculating, but I just find your point absolutely unbelievable.

> TBH, this is a bit of a stereotype.

I live in Korea. The amount of people who binge drink often and are hard drinkers in general, is higher than what I ever saw in the United States. It may be a bit overstated as a stereotype, but it is absolutely true.

Also, in the US, you do not have to go drinking with your colleagues/boss after work, out of social pressure. This is still common in Korea, especially for older workers. It's only now changing for the younger generation.

> socially taboo, to a situation where you can have shops on the street would not worsen drug issues.

These already exist, they're called "bars". One can pay money and enter a stupified state of consciousness, either quickly or slowly.

Unlike other drugs [including alcohol, a drug], marijuana is not physically addictive. I'm not advocating for hard drug stores to be present like bars are; I'm saying I don't have a problem with say, Colorado's style, so far. Making marijuana easier to smoke in Japan or Korea wouldn't be as dire as you're making it out to be.

I have to assume that increased use of a drug means that the situation has worsened. If you legalize it, it will worsen by definition.

Okay, I will call you old-fashioned. These things exist, and you cannot bury your head in the sand.

Do you know what happens when cannabis is illegal and people decide to skirt that? People synthesize technically-legal alternatives, and give them acronyms like 'JWH', and sell them online.

It may not seem too harmful, making the products of public research on the effects of cannabinoids on rodents available to the public. But the legislatures will catch on eventually, because it is a clear end-run around the law, right?

Fast-forward a few years, and look at all the harm that this causes; it's like heroin -> fentanyl. What is wrong with the principles of harm reduction?

That’s true in a society where drug use is a major problem.

It’s not true in a society where, statistically speaking, nobody cares about drug use.

Make something widely available and legal to a society that doesn’t have experience with it and doesn’t know the risks, and you end up with a chance of that community being absolutely ravaged by it. People just up and wasted away wherever opium was introduced. The northern territories in Canada have huge problems with people bringing in cheap liquor. What’s right and reasonable in one society may be absolutely destructive in another society, and westerners in particular refuse to accept that possibility.

If nobody cares about something, why would there be a law against it?

Nobody cares, as in nobody cares about using it, much less legalizing it.

Most Japanese people who’ve tried it did it once while traveling to Canada or America.

Why should it be illegal in the first place then if no one cares about it?

Because America wrote up the framework for post WW2 Japan, and drug laws are a part of that.

Nobody cares to repeal the laws because nobody is sticking their neck out to call for legalization because pretty much nobody is seriously using them. There aren't tens of thousands overdosing and dying on opiates and there's no debate on how high is too high to drive. It's simply not a concern.

Ah interesting. Makes sense.

Nobody cares about drug use in Korea or Japan? Alcohol isn’t a drug? Not only is alcohol a drug, it is one of the most harmful drugs to society (according to multiple recent studies), and it’s fairly obvious when you think about the huge amount of violence it provokes (aggressive drunks) and car accidents. Additionally, alcohol addiction is far more harmful to the body and mind than any other drug (yes including heroin). Alcohol is the only drug where you can die from the withdrawal symptoms (DTs). It is far more harmful to society overall than any drug other than perhaps heroin.

If Japan and Korea were to smoke marijuana instead of drinking alchohol, their societies would be better off immediately.

You clearly have some very backward and outdated understanding of drugs, their effects, levels of harm, and recent scientific studies on drugs.

It's weird how discussion of alcoholism in Asia rarely ever mentions the biological component.

Ethanol gives you the good feelings associated with drinking (and the incapacitation) and it gets metabolized into acetaldehyde, which gives you the symptoms of hangover (flushed face, headache, vomiting, etc.). Asian populations have a much higher prevalence of variants of two genes that encode for proteins that turn ethanol into acetaldehyde and acetaldehyde into harmless subcomponents. The variants are much better at metabolizing ethanol (20x faster) and completely inactive at metabolizing acetaldehyde.

Almost all Japanese (>95%) have at least one copy of a "metabolize ethanol faster" gene, and somewhere around half have inactive aldehyde metabolism, so given the same amount of alcohol, they would be far less incapacitated than a European (and red, and puking). The net result is a society that looks like it has a massive alcoholism problem to the west, that isn't quite as bad as it looks.

Do they also suffer less liver damage and other health effects?

Oh, this is absolute bullshit and I think everyone who's smoked weed knows it.

The whole "dude weed is better it'll get rid of crime and so on" isn't something anyone takes seriously. Some people have horrible reactions to it (myself included) and it makes us anything but peaceful. And nowhere where weed has been legalized have alcohol sales died. People just use both. And if you want to dig through my post history, you'll see that I definitely don't have a "backward" understanding of drugs--I've got more than plenty of first-hand experience, and I've also moved from a "dude weed is good lmao" society to a zero drug society and I'll take the latter any day.

Crime rates in America haven't changed since weed got legalized. It's been on a fairly steady decline, albeit rising in 2015 and 2016 after some states legalized it. And while likely unrelated, murder rates have also significantly risen in Uruguay after marijuana was legalized.

And trust me, when it comes to crime, Japan doesn't need to model themselves after other countries. Japan's murder rate is the lowest of any country with over a million people. Maybe you should learn from Japan and start copying their laws? :)

You clearly have a backward and outdated understanding on crime.

The only people I ever experienced having bad trips from smoking weed were those with deep, unresolved mental issues. Unsurprisingly, those shouldn't consume any mind-altering drugs at all, including alcohol (which can easily trigger lifelong schizophrenia - seen it firsthand).

You're not "old-fashioned", that's far too nice a word for someone who endorses violence and incarceration for people who like a drug that you disapprove of.

I agree with you if that means anything to you. The fact that drug problems in a country like Japan are far diminished relative to a country like the US means, in my mind, that the culture should attempt to maintain that purity, which can only be reasonably done by preventing people from partaking.

Take fast food for instance. The Americanization of the Japanese diet is leading to increased obesity in what used to be a very healthy society. It is the mere exposure of these addictive foods that has lead to this. Honestly, it makes me a bit sad.

According to the original article there are known flaws in the drug use statistics in Japan so We actually have no idea how big a problem it is.