Hacker News Reader

Comment by senttoschool | Hacker News Reader

I just quit weed after getting addicted for almost 2 years.

There is a large community of people who are trying to quit: /r/leaves

The article is nothing new to me. Read a few posts from the subreddit and you'd see a pattern.

Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.

Edit: I'm not against decriminalization of weed. I'm highly against pro-recreational use. I'm against high THC %, easy access, advertisements, sponsorships, etc. I believe weed should be classified as a highly addictive drug - especially to youth. We should not have weed stores. It should be sold behind the counter. It should have a very high tax so that it's not cheap. It should have huge, bold warning labels on packaging. It should not be legalized at the federal level.

View on HN

With all due respect, your inability to use marijuana responsibly should not make my responsible marijuana usage illegal.

Society does this all the time though realistically. If there is a 1:N chance of harm; and N is low, and we have no idea who will be harmed, we tend to regulate or make illegal.

How many societies have legalized marijuana?

There are many things that provably have much higher risk of harm than cannabis but have no serious attempts underway to make them illegal. Unhealthy food. Motorcycles. All kinds of dangerous hobbies. And alcohol of course. The list is long.

I don’t think it has much to do with wanting to help or protect anyone, or else you would see more consistency in the things people want to make illegal. It’s more akin to religious people who think they know the “right” way to live and want to impose those values on everyone.

Many people just have an emotional dislike of cannabis for whatever reason—seeing its effect on others makes them uncomfortable, so they want to stop everyone from doing it. Soda and motorcycles don’t make them uncomfortable, so they don’t care about those.

How many societies would have made marijuana illegal had the US not done so first and then forced the rest of the world’s hand?

Not convinced. Look at Singapore. I doubt they would care what the US does. Anyway, after the US legalizes everything for “freedom”, I’m not sure that many countries will follow suit.

You're wrong about that. Every non-theocratic/ hyper-conservative country will legalize it sooner or later

Hmm, the non theocratic countries like China represent the majority and I’m not sure they will do that…

China may as well be considered hyper-conservative in drug policy.

I believe it’s left wing authoritarianism. The government said it was bad, so everyone back the party line.

Yes and they are very conservative in many social policies, including drugs (conservative = maintaining ("conserving") the status quo).

Sure if you define conservatives to mean authoritarian leftists who want to conserve their rules and laws, I agree:

Nice snarky bad-faith response. It's obviously not what I said. I hope you get better at dealing with people who threaten your sense of superiority.

I’m pretty sure alcohol, cars, and guns do more harm, but good luck making them illegal.

With all due respect, I was a responsible user for the first year too. Good luck to you and I hope you never get addicted.

Unlike alcohol addiction, which can come on fast, weed grabs a hold of you over a longer period. It starts out as only beneficial with little to no downside. You won't notice you're addicted until much later.

Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.

I first smoked marijuana 20 years ago. Since then there have been years where I haven’t had it at all, to smoking daily for months, to going back to not having it for months at a time. I have never had any issue stopping. No withdrawal. For me it’s even easier to quit than coffee. Not that I ever said to myself I need to “quit” smoking marijuana, because it isn’t an addiction. Sometimes I’m more busy than other times and want to focus on work, so I don’t get the time. Other times I’m in a more recreational period of my life and I find it is a lot more preferable than alcohol. Did you know some people casually are able to smoke cigarettes too without getting addicted?

> Also, I find your decision to call the plant marijuana interesting. The names weed and pot have a negative connotation. But "marijuana" sounds a lot more acceptable. Nothing to do with you. Just something I noticed.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/29/marijuana-na...

I am a responsible user for more than ten years.

You speak as if marijuana is highly addictive when in fact it is less addictive than coffee and easier to quit.

Seeing the diversity of opinions and experiences here I am inclined to believe there is an interaction between the genetics of the strain, and your own genetics that determine whether your particular habit become something which is addictive for you.

This is highly fascinating, and opens the door towards in nuanced manipulation of marijuana plant genetics in order to create strains with the benefits, but without the addictive side effects and tailoring that genetic strain manipulation to the genetics of the individual user where they could undergo a kind of a genetic test, and then the strain could be tailored to meet their exact desired profile without any addictive qualities.

That would be great. I have a friend who get severe panic attack if he uses the wrong strain. Any other strain and he has a great night. I forgot whether it was sativa or Indica that does it

Plants are so fascinating. Yeah it's weird how diverse the experiences can be...and how it's about the whole of plant chemistry, not just a single compound.

Marijuana can be highly addictive, it depends on the person. I’ve been addicted for over 20 years, completely unable to stop for more then a week and I know a lot of people in the same situation. Not saying it should be illegal because of this, just saying that because it’s not addictive to you doesn’t mean it can’t be for other people. That is why it’s important not to advertise marijuana as a risk free substance.

> Three weeks ago, I was pro-weed recreation legalization. Today, I'm strongly anti recreation use.

The other posters here have a point. If one is vocal against cannabis while mostly giving alcohol a pass - it makes it harder to respect warnings of harm.

After 5 generations of lying drug war PR and ridiculous propaganda, this deeply incredulous debate needs a lot to be worth considering.

Just because alcohol is bad for you, doesn't mean weed is good for you.

I believe it's easier to get addicted to weed than alcohol. I think time will prove me right.

Think of it this way. Let's say there are 100 people in a society. Without weed, 5 are addicted to alcohol. With weed, 20 are addicted to weed and 3 are addicted to alcohol. Yes, there will be fewer alcohol addicts, but we added 20 weed addicts. Is this better for society? I don't believe so.

You're welcomed to disagree.

Being addicted to alcohol is easily an order of magnitude more destructive to a person and the people around them than chronic marijuana use. It’s not even close.

I’ve been to inpatient chemical dependency treatment twice, once for opiate addiction and once for alcohol addiction. There were 0 people that were inpatient for marijuana use.

Just because alcohol addiction is worse for you, doesn't mean weed is good for you.

But the problem is the ADDICTION, not the substance itself. People are trying to point out that if you are against marijuana legalization (because people become addicts), then you must also be against legal alcohol, as it is a much more destructive and addictive substance. And you haven't answered with anything except "weed is bad for you!"

I dont think its fair to just pull those number out of your bottocks and use them as argument. The same way I could argue "100 people, 20 addicted to alcohol, with weed 5 are addicted to weed and 5 to alcohol, while 30 begun to use alcohol/weed responsibly after broadening their views on how substances affect their mind.

Now the argument looks completely different, yet still holds 0 value.

It seems to me you are scared of weed now, and with your honest good will want to save others from it as well. That's nice and all, but please don't presume you know better than everyone, or even better than "those who haven't tried it yet".

I have had my fair share of experiences with weed, and while I agree that mindless consumption will bring harm (ask me how I know), I also believe that just landing hard in this case helped me discern this pattern in other areas of my life too - so (in my subjective experience) even this harm it brought me _directly_ improved my life in the long run. And that's before I start talking about effect it had outside its most obvious harm.

I advocate for education, and responsible trials for anyone curious, and I believe it can bring many positive changes into ones life. One just have not to abuse it.

Yes, I pulled the numbers out of my ass - just like you did. It's just my opinion and I was just trying to make a point with an example - not hard facts. I never presented it as hard facts.

Your 20 pot heads are most dangerous to sweets and junk food. The alcoholics drive, get angry and start fights.

I'd much rather be in a room with 20 stoners than 5 drunks.

I agree with you. Absolutely.

My stance is, just because alcohol is bad for you, doesn’t mean weed is good for you.

I’d rather not be in a room with either group though.

So don’t be. What you’re saying is that nobody should be able to be in that room, because you know better than they what’s best for them.

You don’t seem to recognize that, at its enactment, drug prohibition had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of literal harm drugs caused to their users. Look up the horrifically racist excuse that was used for making cannabis illegal.

I watched the documentary on blacks and weed on Netflix. I'm not an expert. I have some idea.

I do not care about racism in weed or the past. I'm speaking purely from my own experience. I'm also speaking on weed's influence on my future children. Weed does not exist on a vacuum. It doesn't exist for only users and not at all for non-users.

Who are you to restrict your future children’s access once they’re adults?

We pass on learnings to our children. Even when they’re adults, they are our children.

You can’t possibly think kids having easy access to drugs is good.

If you do, you’re just speaking like an addict and I would suggest some help.

I don’t think kids having easy access to lots of things is a good idea. However, I think adults having easy access to those same things is fine.

Why would you bring up that straw-man unless you think that you should still be able to control your children’s choices after they become adults? They may be your descendants, but when they are no longer children, you don’t get more than an advisory role in their choices.

"Learnings." Your English is a bit strange. You are not a native speaker I take it?

In my part of the world, legalization has made it harder for kids to get pot, not easier.

>> Today, I'm strongly anti

Haha like all reformed addicts of anything. I'm strongly anti cigarettes.

Well, I wouldn't have been strongly anti recreational use if I didn't go through what I did.

Extremely high THC products coupled with professional marketing agencies? Yikes. We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.

If we have a weed epidemic then we certainly have an alcohol epidemic too, as well as an obesity epidemic, as well as a traffic accident epidemic, and so on.

Making everything that can be harmful to some subset of the population illegal is not the way to deal with these issues. It's reductio ad absurdum into a totalitarian nanny state that literally controls your diet and makes you drive 25 mph on the highway.

It's not the government's job to make everything that could possibly hurt you if you overdo it unavailable to you.

I agree with you that cannabis can be very harmful to some people, and that the risks are often understated. But if you want to help people who are susceptible in this way, the solution is to help them realize they have a problem, develop self-discipline, and understand that while cannabis may be harmless to many people, for them it is not, and what works for many others (occasional moderate use) won't work for them.

In short, people with this issue should take responsibility, join a 12 step program, and fix the problem in themselves rather than expecting all of society to adapt itself to not trigger their addiction. That you can't use it in moderation doesn't mean no one can, just like there are probably many things you can do in moderation that other people aren't able to.

There are a few issues with what you're saying.

1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.

2. It's much harder to realize that you're addicted to weed - unlike alcohol. Alcohol addiction is obvious to people around you as well. Not weed. Many weed addicts do not have the self awareness.

3. Weed can be significantly cheaper than alcohol per session - thus consuming more is economical for many. A few drinks at a bar could cost you $100 vs eat a weed gummy for $2 and then go out.

4. Weed addiction takes place over a long period of time. It could take years before you realize the negative effects. It's obvious for alcohol immediately.

> 1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.

Maybe this is a US/Canada thing, but it is deeply untrue in the UK. Cannabis has a terrible image here, as opposed to alcohol. Someone who drinks a bottle of wine a night would not be frowned upon.

I never tell people at work that I consume cannabis, not even people I am friends with, as it leads to all kinds of assumptions and prejudices.

None of those are issues with what I'm saying.

Many millions of people are able to use cannabis moderately and responsibly. If for whatever reason you can't, that's up to you to deal with--there are many resources available that can help. Taking it away from everyone because you have a problem is not a reasonable solution.

If you legalize cocaine and meth, some people will use it responsibly too. ;)

I'm against drug prohibition in general. I think it has been an abject failure. Strong regulation makes sense for the most dangerous drugs (cannabis certainly isn't one of them), but I don't think any drug should be illegal. I don't believe it's the government's job to save you from yourself.

Making a habit of driving 100mph on a motorcycle will probably kill you about as quickly on average as either of those drugs, and is more dangerous to other people to boot. Should motorcycles therefore also be illegal? If not, why not? If the goal is to stop people from hurting themselves, why are you only focused on one particular way that people can hurt themselves?

We have laws preventing 100mpg speeds on any vehicle. We also have laws that govern how a motorcycle should be driven.

The government can't ban everything that has a risk of death. You could die if a tree falls on you randomly. The government isn't going to ban trees. It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US.

Are you a software developer or work in tech? There are millions of things you can do to improve your product but you always prioritize the most important ones first, right? Best bang for the buck. And you'll likely never reach the improvements at the bottom of the list.

A law against 100mph speeds on a vehicle is not a corollary to drug prohibition--it's banning the use of vehicles completely.

"It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US."

Considering that cannabis kills exactly no one, you seem to be arguing against your own point here.

>A law preventing 100mph speeds on a vehicle is not a corollary to drug prohibition--it's banning the use of vehicles completely.

See my tree falling example.

>Considering that cannabis kills exactly no one, you seem to be arguing against your own point here.

Nope. You're using deaths as the measuring stick. I'm using impact to society.

Alcohol addiction is not immediately obvious for many people.

Relative to weed, it’s a lot faster.

In my experience, that's not correct.

Can you please share your sources? I'm always happy to be persuaded by studies.

At 75% of the US population obese and a cost to society in the billions, that's no longer "some subset of the population".

It's long past the point of "people with this issue should take responsibility".

If you enjoy weed, and I think that's fine if you do, you should be able to forsee a future where the weed industry in a capitalist system with few regulations ends up in the same position as the food industry: having created highly addictive and unhealthy products to the point of causing massive and lasting damage to society.

It would be better to smartly regulate early on and avoid the disaster and the predictable overreaction as a result. It is hard to smartly regulate. But worth the investment if you want to continue enjoying something.

And smart regulations don't require a nanny state as you implied. You can still choose to smoke cigarettes. But smoking has declined from 20.9% of adults in 2005 to 11.5% in 2021. Thanks in part to smart regulations and higher taxes.

At the very least we should be willing to tax harmful substances at the same rate at which they cost society.

That's not a nanny state. That's just fair. Why should I pay a part of your choice to smoke cigarettes?

> We're going to have a weed epidemic soon. Maybe it's a silent epidemic now.

Whatever it is, it's been underway for long enough for the pot-parade of horribles to manifest itself. Heavy weed smokers are all over - but we aren't surrounded by ruin that is clearly attributable to pot.

If you have extra concern to invest, may I suggest one of our most pressing psychological catastrophe?

The criminalization of childhood growth (adult-free time) and the erasure of critical free range land. We've brought complete ruin to childhood and parenting in just two generations. Whatever you think pot is doing, this is actually far, far worse.

Nothing more virtuous than a reformed smoker:D

Track the timeline of your personal evolution on this topic as you progress in your journey. I'm a bit more than a week ahead of you, and I'm coming to see the problem as high THC content. Low THC (<10%) and high CBD may mitigate your (justified) concerns about recreational use. Of course as it's become legal in more places, Big Industry is showing its perpetual tendency to create higher potency strains with more addictive potential. Stay tuned..

These measures will only increase the black market for weed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com