Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by pravda | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pravda

Ummm...also because they like to get toasted.

I think this plan is discriminatory.

"under my proposal, only adults age 21 and over would be allowed to possess up to one ounce of marijuana"

Why shouldn't 18-20 year olds have the right to blaze up? Those are the prime toking years.

View on HN

Because 21 is the legal drinking age in the United States, and it's far more politically palatable to say 'this is just like booze' than it is to say 'let's embrace dirty stoner culture.'

Check out the pro-legalization ads that ran in Washington last year when we successfully passed a MJ legalization initiative: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xja72pL-ZEM&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...

Coincidentally, this weekend is Hempfest here in Seattle. The Seattle PD is on hand passing out Doritos and literature on how to stay compliant with our state laws: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/15/us/seattle-police-doritos-...

Because it might be unsafe. See, the human brain undergoes important development until the age of 25 and research has shown that cannabis significantly affects the brain of children and adolescents. Structural changes have been found in the brains of young cannabis users, especially in the prefrontal cortex, the last brain region to undergo maturation during adolescence. I'm for legalizing medical as well as recreational use of marijuana for adults but I think more research has to be done on how certain cannabinoids affect the brains of children. Especially because cannabis might be the only known substance that helps for example with Davet syndrome - it can save their lives.

Are you suggesting that "might be unsafe" is all the reason needed to legally withhold the right of a person to do something to his/her own body?

I'm suggesting that cannabis should be sold strictly to adults only. Cannabis, just like alcohol, impairs the growth and integrity of certain brain structures of adolescents. Would you want 14-year-old kids to be able to legally buy and consume cannabis and alcohol? Of course it won't stop all of them who want from getting it somehow, it didn't stop me either at that age but do we really want to make it easily accessible and risk having a generation with potential damaged brains?

> Ummm...also because they like to get toasted.

Not really, I prefer drinking. ...coincidentally, the legal age for doing that is 21. How discriminatory.

These are the years it's most likely to tip certain folks over the precipice into mental illness. A tiny minority are at risk, but those are the years.

There is a whole industry of Drug War sponsored quack science that is no more legit than tobacco company sponsored "science."

There is plenty of objective, non-sponsored research that shows marijuana to have at least in some cases a negative effect. But nice work blanketing all of the research you disagree with as illegitimate.

Then link it.

EDIT: From last time we talked about this, some Google Scholar links--

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890856709....

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/3/216.short

http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7374/1195.1.short

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395607....

Note, though, that these are pretty inconclusive as far as causality goes.

I painted it as illegitimate because it is. ONDCP does propaganda, not science.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abst...

Subsequently debunked as an uncontrolled study. That's a prime example of the kind of research and researchers bought by ONDCP.

Citation for this debunking?

Here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/09/1215678110.abst...

And, as a bonus, here is a debunking of a similar, and similarly widely touted study that made it into the Lancet. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560900

The point is: The whole purpose of these heavily funded studies is to penetrate mainstream journals. They were hyped in the mainstream press with the full weight of government behind the press blitz.

There isn't actually good evidence to distinguish the flow of causation with cannabis and schizophrenia. In a significant plurality of cases, schizophrenia manifests in the 15-21 age range, regardless of cannabis use.

Probably because 21 is the minimum age for buying alcohol, too (I think).

While 18 is the minimum age for killing people and getting killed in war. Sounds about right!

You are being cynical.

I have no interest in consuming marijuana but I wholeheartedly support legalization, because it would save a lot of public money and because criminalizing it ruins productive people's lives. Anecdotally, a lot of people I know in the tech community think similarly.

As for the age limit, take it step by step. Insisting on a perfect solution immediately accomplishes nothing except to delay any solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com