Hacker News Reader

Comment by GDC7 | Hacker News Reader

To be honest most of the fascination with pot is the fact that it's illegal and you are not supposed to smoke it.

Governments around the world should think long and hard before legalizing it because as soon as they do, people will move to the next thing. Maybe something that it's both illegal and won't cause much harm such as cocaine and party drugs. Still more harmful than pot though.

For sure there would be a sudden spike if you could buy pot at Whole Foods, but I'd be surprised if 1 year after legalization there are huge differences vis-a-vis the current regime

The way I see it , alcohol is the layer0 . People use it to lower their own inhibitions and also groups as a whole to lower the group's inhibitions.

Once a substance that can perform the aforementioned function is provided and legal, everything else becomes a contest for people trying to one-up each other.

And I think pot is included in it, but also cigarettes and all the other drugs.

View on HN

> To be honest most of the fascination with pot is the fact that it's illegal and you are not supposed to smoke it.

This is easily disproven by looking at domestic marijuana usage in states where it is legal -- reported past marijuana use has increased year after year in every such state.

> Governments around the world should think long and hard before legalizing it because as soon as they do, people will move to the next thing.

This view is myopic. What about societal benefits? Shouldn't governments also think about: tax revenue increases, fewer people in jail, more people employed, lower use of opiates, etc? (Not to mention personal liberty and giving citizens the right to grow a plant whose effects are clearly less harmful than alcohol in the aggregate.)

> The way I see it , alcohol is the layer0 . People use it to lower their own inhibitions and also groups as a whole to lower the group's inhibitions.

People also use alcohol and then commit domestic abuse or kill people with automobiles or kill themselves, while their "inhibitions are lowered". Sounds great for society.

(On re-reading, I see you are not necessarily arguing for alcohol to be legal -- you seem to be saying that there will be a slow ramp-up of legalizing all drugs because people want to "one-up each other". I find this claim strange and it doesn't resonate with me -- I know plenty of people that like alcohol and not weed, and vice versa. There's no hierarchy of drugs.)

I'm sure that's true for some small percentage of the population to try and one-up each other with dangerous acts. But the fact that they do it because it is illegal is very dubious. Where is the world of underground illegal cycling on freeways? Right, there is no culture of that because no one from the general populace is doing that for fun. The one-upping can only exist in a culture that is well established via some other means. For instance, search for "gravity biking" which is an incredibly dangerous sport that only exists in places with a big cycling culture. The legality of pot has nothing to do with daredevil behavior.

> Where is the world of underground illegal cycling on freeways?

The underground culture of illegal street racing is alive and well though.

Cycling is not a social activity in the sense that has constraints to socialization both during the activity as well as before/after.

Street racing isn't that social of an activity either but it exists and thriving. The Fast saga made 15B from it. Drug consumption on a night out is the social activity by definition, it trumps street racing.

You essentially prove my point. That an illicit form of a dangerous activity exists because many other people are doing it as part of their daily life not because the activity is in itself illegal.

No , it's because of the thrill.

Street racing has an element of thrill and danger in the race itself, whereas pot only trill would be breaking the law given that it is impossible to OD and there is little to no harm.

The low toxicity and low harm are positives but only as long as there is some form of thrill to keep the population hooked on pot. That is: breaking the law.

I don't think you've ever smoked pot...

People are not smoking pot as a trill of breaking the law. Just as drinking alcohol before the age of 21 is not for the trill of breaking the law, but for the feeling it gives.

Alcohol is in every way worse for you as a person and for society, yet it is fully legal.

I don't smoke simply because my Job requires a pot free lifestyle. But I spent the first half of my 20s doing it, and the last thing on my mind or anyone else was "Take that LawMan".

Plus you can be a daily smoker for 6+ years and quit cold turkey. Sure you might crave it, but that is more mental. Your body doesn't break down from not having it. Unless you have poor mental control to keep yourself from breaking. Its the same weak control that fools people into dumping money into mobile games.

It's not because of the thill. It's because people like to relax or focus. There are two different main strains and both do different things, one is more relaxing the other is more energizing.

I believe we are saying the same thing. I called these people daredevils in my original post to capture exactly that they are pursuing thrills. I'm sure doing pot is thrilling for puritans because it is illegal but that is so laughable because of the state of reality. My point remains that these daredevils aren't going to upgrade to harsher substances if pot is legalized because that has long since past on the thrills scale.

I don't know a single pothead who does it because of the thrill of breaking the law. They do it because they enjoy being high.

Which is anecdotal, but still more grounded in reality than wild conjecture based on nothing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g-NsgOa42VE

Here is your world of underground freeway biking btw

That road has a sidewalk, that isn't a freeway.

I think it’d help if you cited some data to back up what you’re saying. Without it your claims are pure conjecture. There’s plenty of opportunity for such data to be collected because there’s data before and after legalisation in many states and countries. You could compare US states where it’s legal and where it isn’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com