Surgeon general: No 'value' to locking people up over marijuana use | Hacker News Reader

Surgeon general: No 'value' to locking people up over marijuana use

thehill.com

68 pointsDocFeind59 comments

The value was explained back in the Nixon era, and it was a BAD value:

" “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”"

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-rich...

Last time when this quote was posted on HN, consens turned out to be that its is quite unclear if it was ever say. I remember this as i really wanted to belief that the story was was true but ended up thinking it rather no true.. Unlike in the article you linked to, last time the conclusion was that the source recalled overhearing Nixon two decades ago, and thus was deemed quite unreliable at best - Anyone know more than me about this?

It’s obviously a made-up posthumous quote. Nobody who cared about their image (as John Ehrlichman clearly did) was using “blacks” instead of Jesse Jackson’s “African Americans” while talking to journalists in 1994.

Doesn’t explain why most of Asia is even harsher and more restrictive than the USA.

Opium comes to mind historically.

The USA does export its drug policy stance, and per the Nixon policies, it's a win for any government to have those tools of oppression on tap for when needed.

I think a simpler explanation is that the general public in a country such as Japan deeply hates drug use.

except booze, the worst drug. vocational drinking is a cultural phenomenon.

The deal is lack of education, and exposure. The west is a lot further along on the pathway to legalization. I do believe that when the day comes, usage will be similar to in the west under legalization. We are all humans after all.

> except booze, the worst drug.

Look, people are coming around to the idea that alcohol is really bad for us despite it being embedded in our social norms.

Let's not go getting carried away calling it "the worst drug". That's absurd to an extreme.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/06/25/what-is-...

Pretty clear its alcohol, and this is not the only chart that clearly labels it as such.

Alcohol is the worst drug. I'm sorry if you like it, hey, I like alcohol too, and it being the worst drug means that you like the worst drug...

as a native German speaker it really stands out to me that his name translates to “honest man”...

Wow, how brave of them to come out 20 years after this was consensus amongst health professionals.

Better now than never. It saddens me that the impact of criminalizing drug usage so heavily in every country will never truly be appreciated. So many lives and families ruined...

Curious what's the opinion of the HN community on decriminalization and legalization of marijuana.

It seems accepted as an inevitable progress.

But seeing the damage alcohol and tobacco does to society, I wonder what good it will bring, except from an economic PoV.

Prohibiting alchohol did so much damage to society that we passed a constitutional amendment to repeal prohibition.

The crimanalization of marijuana has already done damage to society that will take generations to repair. I find it very difficult to see how the increase in usage that would follow from legalization would be more damaging than the damage done by prohibition.

I don't like marijuana. Some people love it, but its not for me.

I voted to legalize it in Massachusetts when it was on the ballot.

Even though: I know someone who was hit on his bike by an obviously high driver, and its hard to prove the "driving while high". Its a problem. I've seen people tokin while driving while on my bike, which scares me (you see a lot of crazy stuff while riding).

Like all fan clubs the "Marijuana solve all problems" groups annoy me (its medicinal! now its for recreation! (its ok for this drug, but not for oxy!)).

Its crazy to throw people in Jail for it. Some friends who use(d) are fine responsible humans. Irresponsible people (jerks) are going to be irresponsible whether its pot or alcohol or something else.

The sky hasn't fallen as some predicted. Mostly its pretty much the same here day to day.

You seem to be assuming that making it legal would lead to increased usage. And also that a person's individual right to do what they want with their own body and mind had no value.

(Anonymous throwaway account because I'm still employed and usually comment from an account from which my identity can be derived)

I'm a habitual user with a hereditary predisposition towards addictive behavior. Moving to the Bay Area for work 7 years ago was the best move for my banking account(s) and the worst move for my life overall. The few years in between the move and the ability for me to walk into a store and walk out with a gram of THC across various products - all obtained above the board - were some of the most productive and socially rewarding years of my life. I was clean and not within hundreds or thousands miles of anyone who could serve me my biggest lifelong vice. I'm too weak. It took a few months after the change for me to cave in. I've missed weddings. I've lost friends because I've had season-long depressive episodes where I just can't bring myself to respond to any messages - all I have the energy and drive to do is crank out JIRA tickets and then go alter reality. I'm actually just past the tail end of one now and I still have a four-figure notification backlog.

Deep in my heart I know that it is a personal problem and it is entirely up to me to defeat my own demons. But I'm the uncaught NullPointerException that surfaced when my community removed the societal defensive programming around marijuana. I wish it were still illegal.

EDIT: and to preempt a "you weren't really addicted if you never went to get a farcical medical card" - believe me, the itch was there. But it was that extra level of indirection that kept me honest and on the straight and narrow. Every time I came close, the non-immediate reward was enough of a deterrence that I could make the rational choice.

I hear you. Like many IT types, my brain is a reliable engine that has served me for decades. It loves to be excited, stimulated and challenged. Getting high - after several days of abstinence - gives me insight and unlocks thoughts and concepts that are otherwise hidden behind the sensible filters. Those thoughts have turned into ideas that have turned into products that have made millions and employed many people.

But I'm weak. That initial session turns into another, when the ideas are less forthcoming, and then another, when I am not even functioning at par.

The way it works best is a short limited session, then abstinence for a week.

But I'm weak. My brain doesn't work like that, it just wants more.

My current regime is to lock it in a box with a padlock in it (its illegal here anyway so at least I can't just restock at will) and give someone else the key.

So yeah - pros and cons, but unlimited access definitely does not work for me.

The idealist in me thinks it should be legal, as what people should put into their bodies should be there choice.

The pragmatist thinks it should stay illegal. We know it’s bad for people’s brains, especially developing minds. That’s compounded by the fact that many people think the primary danger from drugs is death, and since it won’t kill you it must be basically harmless.

I’m sure a good portion of us also know people that have become psychologically addicted to it and have wasted a good portion of their lives. I have friends that didn’t do any pot until they went to a state where it was legal, and they decided they liked it enough where they risked bringing some back with them. It seems clear legalization will lead to increased use.

In short, it’s a battle of individual rights vs. what’s best for society. I’m not sure what the answer is. It also seems like a slippery slope - if weed is legal, shouldn’t most other drugs be? If that’s the case, should prescriptions still be necessary for things like stimulants?

> We know it’s bad for people’s brains, especially developing minds

To clarify, we know its bad for developing brains, but I don't think we know the effect on people who start smoking > age 25. There have been studies that show different things, but I don't think we have any consensus about the impact of cannabis usage on brains > 25 y.o.

Also, if we're going to base it as individual vs. society, its important to include the cost of enforcement as a negative on the societal part. For me, that makes the decision pretty easy - in both cases, we have harm caused either by the drug or by the drug + enforcement.

I don’t think the distinction matters much for the first point. Not many people are going to wait until they’re 25 (or later) to start, and I haven’t heard of anyone pushing for legalization only for >25 year olds.

> It seems clear legalization will lead to increased use.

I live in one of the states that legalized it quite a while ago. Statistically, there has been no significant increase in use (probably because everyone who wanted to use it already was).

> It seems accepted as an inevitable progress.

I see a pendulum in motion. When Sherlock Holmes was written, we had a very different view on drug use. Back then, it was a capitalist/libertarian utopia, where folks could generally cook up, sell, and use, pretty much anything they could manage. In the early 20th century, abstinence movements got popular, and everything including alcohol was criminalized. Today, we've got (depending where you live) legal alcohol, legal weed, open sales of hallucinogens, and safe injection sites for opiates.

Meth, weird to me, doesn't appear to be a big priority and it's huge in organized crime. Opiates are the villain of today, and the result of that may lead to a sharper distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs.

There's a big conversation underway about UBI -- opponents see it as encouraging "laziness," which, any honest stoner will admit, cannabis encourages. That could end up swinging the pendulum back the other way. I don't really see any of this as permanent or inevitable

> Meth, weird to me, doesn't appear to be a big priority and it's huge in organized crime. Opiates are the villain of today

From everything that I've seen, opioids are the worst, by far. Highest addiction potential, physical withdrawal symptoms, low therapeutic index (easy to overdose), dangerous route of administration (injection), and ultra-potent substances like fentanyl make it even worse.

Meth is bad, crack cocaine is bad, but opioids are worse. The only drug that can compete in harm to society is alcohol, but only because of sheer numbers.

I live in a state (California) that made it legal. Nothing changed except the state collects taxes now. Everyone who wanted to smoke marijuana before legalization was already smoking it. Legalization didn't change anyone's habits as far as I can tell. I don't even see any increase in smoking in public (not that often)

Whatever damage drugs do is insignificant compared to the damage that the prohibition laws do -- from punishing individuals to subsidizing organized crime (by artificially raising prices on drugs by making them illegal).

My maybe unpopular thought: There are legal/illegal (relatively)healthy/unhealthy drugs/foods. We already have many legal/healthy, many legal/unhealthy, very few illegal/healthy, and many illegal/unhealthy drugs/foods. It seems that hemp is considered to categorized to illegal/(relatively)healthy drug (only for adults?). So I can think that keep it on the category is somewhat good for who want to do bad thing. Of course it depends on the situation in each country.

Disclaimer: I have no experience.

It may not bring good, but using prison and ever-stricter laws have only introduced additional damage.

Entire vast populations are effectively under the control of drug cartels. Civil forfeiture is a product of the drug war.

Current efforts have not stopped the flow of drugs, most and especially marjiuana are easier to get than ever. Ask any public high school student.

It's healthier than most alcohol or tobacco use. I don't see why it should be controlled.

That depends on what you mean. Tobacco - bad for lungs, throat, mouth. Alcohol - bad for pretty much all of you. Pot - bad for your brain, and other areas depending on how you take it. Can also trigger psychological disorders like schizophrenia.

I fear that legalization won’t come with the education that’s necessary to counteract the “marijuana is healthy” crowd that make that leap because you can’t die from it. It’s pretty clear it’s terrible for developing brains.

I have used all three, and cannabis is the least habit-forming, in my personal experience. Even if it was able to produce the same negative physical effects as tobacco or alcohol, that makes it less pernicious, imo.

Allowing drugs and other vices for the sake of economic prosperity is sad and goes against progress for humanity. I live next door to someone that smokes non-stop everyday and the second-hand smoke pisses me off to no end.

"Something irritates me so I want the irritant taken away and locked in a cage". Your vision of the world is clouded by your own hate. As you are someone who conflates a plant with 'drugs', I strongly recommend you spend some time to understand the issues, understand the really nasty history behind prohibition.

Stop and think about how your attitude is trapping humanity in a box. Live a little. Be open to change. Understand others perspective.

All the same, they should not be subjected to the smell of smoke from their neighbors house.

I should not be subjected to the smell of my neighbor's cooking, but here we are.

An important part of living in a civilized world is to put up with the merely annoying stuff our neighbors do. After all, the odds are good that you and I do at least one thing that annoys our neighbors as well.

Would you stop BBQing if your neighbour complained about it?

That's an interesting question. If someone had a smoker running all day, everyday, and it was an annoyance to neighbors - yes, I think there should be recourse.

One person shouldn't be allowed to harm other people's enjoyment of their property.

As someone who was vegan/vegetarian for many years, the smell of bbq used to make me ill. (I only eat meat now).

Only a self absorbed busybody loser jerk with nothing better to do would complain about the neighbors bbq'ing. 'get a life'.

Really? Someone shouldn't be able to smoke in their own house/property?

Different folks have different motivations.

Capitalists want to legalize for profit.

SJWs want to legalize to reduce the prison population.

Libertarians want to legalize because one should be free to choose what they do with their bodies.

Users want to legalize because they don't want to deal with the risk, and prefer above-board retail.

Your characterization of smoking as a "vice" is your personal belief, and personally speaking, I see forcing that belief on others as a vice.

You're missing that legalization breaks criminal monopolies, let's people get help more easily if they need it, and removed a mechanism where law enforcement can basically make someone or some group they don't like a criminal, by making illegal something that most people do.

Actually I think restricting what adults can do to their own bodies goes against "progress for humanity."

So you would prefer people be locked in cells for what they do to their own bodies? How far would you like to take this line of thinking, for the "progress of humanity"?

Locking people up over marijuana may be stupid, but it’s not medical.

I didn’t elect him and he needs to keep his non-medical opinions separate from his job.

From global warming to the pandemic, medical experts and scientists taking political sides has lead to disinformation, hesitancy to do what should be done, stonewalling or even outright censorship of the facts.

Who should we ask then, the chief of police?

Clearly the basis for banning drugs is the harm they may cause to the health of both their users and others. A medical expert's opinion is relevant in assessing harm. It's not like he weighed in on net neutrality.

Arguably, it is medical. Substance use disorders, of which cannabis can be an example, are medical disorders which are better treated medically than with punitive justice.

Everything from chronic theft to murder to and many things in-between could all be viewed as medical disorders in many cases. That isn't particularly relevant to whether or not it should involve jail sentences. Cannabis is not an addictive substance more than many other crimes.

Pointing out cannabis isn't harmful is what I'd expect a surgeon general to say (and I think they should say), but he didn't. Instead, he made a "value" argument which is strictly non-medical.

I'm just old enough to remember when the surgeon general said masterbation was OK and drug policy should be changed and got sacked under Clinton. Let's hope it works better this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joycelyn_Elders

So, everyone that wasted their life in prison because of zero tolerance weed busts, we giving them some money or what?

The US has no federal laws AFAIK regarding use, only possession, which itself was reduced to a misdemeanor ages ago. Hopefully, the Congress will take a leaf out of the Alaskan legislature's book and simply stay out of its citizens' homes.

No. Hopefully Congress will roll back its decision and make it fully legal.

That way:

  * it's legal to grow
  * legal to sell
  * legal to sell across state borders
  * possible to get a bank account used in its financial transaction
  * we can start to undo the damages to 10s of millions who have experienced by
    either themselves, or their loved ones, being thrown into the prison system.

Marijuana use essentially bars a person from working in the federal government or do any associated contractors

It's not so much as punishing people for weed but punishing them for knowingly breaking the law right? Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.

This seems like a bit of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Law does not make something valid good or proper and to follow laws for the sake of them being laws is missing the point of laws no? Do you actually value the purpose of the law or is it just a boolean true or false if something is illegal its bad and wrong because it's illegal?

How valuable to society are people who pretend not to be gay when it's illegal?

How much value was there in keeping black people out of the same restaurants as white people?

What value do you perceive society gains by locking people up for smoking a plant that makes you laugh?

On the contrary does it not remove value from society to stringently pursue punitive measures against something like being in possession of a gram of cannabis while higher crimes often face far less significant (relatively) consequences?

The problem is when law isn't applied consistently, or when phenomena such as one's net worth making a difference in level of justice received is observed, then that's a strong message to those paying attention that there isn't value in following the rule of law, but rather value in knowing people in the right places or getting as much money as you can.

Just like there is value in civil disobedience. I think it is a faulty assumption that the value of following the law is not understood by those purposefully breaking it.

At some point, black people in US were punished for drinking from the wrong water fountains. Maybe locking people up is a bit harsh but people know the consequences no? Maybe we should recognize that there is value in having people in a society follow the rule of law.

Authoritarianism for authoritarianism's sake is pretty objectively bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com