A lot of people who are against legalization make this argument that those who are for it ignore the negative consequences, but for large swathes of pro-legalization people, that's just not true. I know there are negative consequences, and I know that in a very small number of people marijuana can cause serious consequences (and in larger numbers of people, harder drugs like cocaine and heroin can cause more serious consequences).
But the fact that things can cause negative consequences is not sufficient reason to ban them. The obvious example here is alcohol - it is beyond clear from data that alcohol is incredibly harmful. It is beyond clear that it is more harmful than at least some banned substances (marijuana, LSD, MDMA). It is likely that it is more harmful than harder substances like cocaine, but with less data on those we can't say for sure.
So yes, there are negative consequences, but as a society we have decided that we allow people to do things that cause negative consequences (as evidenced by the legality of alcohol). There are limits on that, but with alcohol as a line by which to judge those limits, it's clear that to have any kind of coherent public policy, marijuana should be legal. Or, of course, alcohol could be made illegal. The point is that if you think that alcohol should be legal but other drugs should not, you're just engaging in hypocrisy.
That's why it should be mostly about protecting the youth who are more likely to be uninformed about dangers. It is true that outright prohibition is pointless, but it can introduce a bit of friction that forces users to have to put in a little effort in order to try it. Because of the effort, it is more of a deliberate decision.
Absolutely - education and regulation are much more effective strategies than prohibition along pretty much every dimension. We've drawn the very reasonable line that young people whose brains are still developing don't get alcohol, and of course we should extend that standard to other drugs.
* I did use the qualifier 'often' which is not 'all' and to my opinion it's not enough. People readily forget the downsides and need constant reminders.
Edit: please note that the following includes the qualifier “most” and please understand that this does not mean “all”.
I think alcohol is a bad example as alcohol for most people has a way of punishing abuse on its own and quickly thereby maintaining a tight association between the high and the hangover. The aversion to the hangover means that for most people it's a self correcting problem. Most other drugs don't come with this and the association between the high and negative consequences are more remote and infrequent.
I think alcohol, despite the obvious and extensive damage it causes, is a great training drug that teaches most people moderation through first hand experience and encourages caution with other drugs.
Using alcohol as an example kinda makes the case for prohibiting alcohol as opposed to legalizing other drugs.
I'm not so sure about that. If you've ever talked with a full-blown alcoholic, the allure of drinking is almost a reflex with no consideration for its effects. I don't think they even remember having to lie in their own vomit or the severe hangover they will have to endure. The hangover is enough of a deterrent for myself, but they don't even think twice about it. Its amazing, really.
I'm convinced the only reason alcohol is legal is because it is culturally embedded. If it were being introduced anew, it would be prohibited. Its far worse than most illegal drugs.
I didn’t think I’d have to follow up a post on using a qualifier “often” with another post about using a different qualifier “most” which obviously doesn’t encompass “all”. Counter examples are clearly presumed necessary given the aforementioned damage.
I understand your point that most people who drink alcohol do not become alcoholics. But that is true for all drugs, really. I think the thing that separates alcohol is the long cultural acceptance.
I disagree entirely with this viewpoint - alcohol is one of the most dangerous and addictive substances available, with serious long-term health consequences. While the opiate epidemic has made a lot of headlines, CDC data IIRC points to the alcohol resulting in the premature deaths of about five times as many people (not by direct overdose as with opiates, but via associated medical conditions like liver failure).
Alcohol has a complex set of biochemical effects, but note that part of the issue is that it's similar to opiates, i.e. it triggers the release of an endorphin-like molecule that people get addicted to in the same way as with morphine or heroin.
I still don't think alcohol should be made illegal, but in terms of long-term medical effects, it's certainly more dangerous than cannabis/THC and psychedelic drugs like mushrooms/psilocybine. It really belongs in the same class with amphetamines, cocaine, benzos, and opiates.
If alcohol is one of the most addictive substances around I do not think we need to worry too much. Alcohol is actually not very addictive. Most people can drink regularly drink large amounts of alcohol without feeling the least bit of addiction.
Alcohol is very bad for your health and it is a horrible thing to be addicted to but it is not very addictive.
The mechanism of alcohol addiction is well known and studied, and alcohol is certainly in the same addictive potential class as cocaine, heroin, nicotine and amphetamines.
I encourage you to actually do some research on alcoholism - both the number of people it affects as well as the way it prevents itself. You're dangerously uninformed on the topic to be presenting these kinds of opinions.
oh, come on! I think you're right on this issue, but since when are opinions dangerous? He's giving his honest opinion of the issue according to his experience.
You will be much more effective if you simply try to enjoy the conversation than trying to call out people for having "dangerous opinions".
You put quotes around "dangerous opinions" - you're wrong to do that, because I never used that phrase. I said he was dangerously uninformed.
There are times when people can have valid, personal opinions and times when there's just objective reality. Some people these days say that their opinion is that the 2020 election was stolen. That's not a valid opinion - it's just wrong. Saying that hangovers make alcohol self-regulating when >10M people in the US are alcoholics (for whom it is, as a point of fact, untrue that alcohol is a self-regulating substance) is not a valid opinion - it's a misunderstanding of reality.
As someone who knows people who have been very severely negatively affected by alcoholism, I do not enjoy conversations with people who make points about alcohol that are totally uninformed and suggest that we should base policy around those uninformed thoughts.
I just think you would enjoy the conversation more if your experience was not dependent on someone else's opinion. You are also assuming something about another person that is more than likely untrue. Sounds like a horrible way to live.
No offense to you, but who named you the arbitrator of "valid opinions"? I doubt you are that arrogant in person, but you sure are coming off that way.
Most =/ all. For some it doesn’t work this way and that is very costly to us all. Hence the great deal of damage that it causes. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, is alcohol too dangerous therefore we must legalize more drugs?
The point is that we should have a coherent policy in the US around how we treat drugs.
Either we should accept a certain threshold of danger around drug use and allow all drugs under that threshold to be used (with appropriate regulation), or we should not accept the use of dangerous drugs and should outlaw them.
Right now, US drug policy is that a fairly dangerous drug (alcohol) is not legal, while other clearly less dangerous drugs (marijuana, most hallucinogens, MDMA, etc.) are not legal. It should be changed to be a rational policy in which everything less dangerous than alcohol is legal or a policy in which alcohol is not legal.
If anything I think perhaps reducing the legal age for drinking in the US. Where I’m from getting black out drunk is considered immature and people are expected to grow out of it, but then we start a lot earlier. Plus we learn how to handle alcohol * before we learn how to drive so it’s not considered matcho to drink and drive. I think cigarette companies like the 3 year gap of being able to buy cigarettes but not alcohol.
I’m pretty pro legalization, I think it’s probably best handled at the cultural level, but until society matures there is going to a fair bit of collateral damage and I think we should be honest about that.
* it’s a generalization… obviously it doesn’t work out this way for everyone.
At no point did I advocate prohibition of alcohol, I am suggesting that others pointing out the incredible harm alcohol does doesn’t do a great job in making the case that more drugs should be legal.
Well that's not feasible for me, but I have been meaning to upgrade to a larger desk (I'm still on the first one I ever owned - the cheapest one from Ikea). You've inspired me to do it. Just ordered a new one.
Hope you love it! One tip I have is to spend some time before it arrives donating/disposing of old desk clutter you don’t need anymore. That’ll allow you to take even better advantage of the new space.
Reddit just doesn't have any incentive to do this - you're talking about people who are doing free labor for them. Maybe it's got problems, but if you get rid of the power mods (and don't change the structure to add any incentives like pay), you probably just end up with a bunch of unmoderated communities that then die off.
Because many people just aren't able to get that ratio to a point that they're at a healthy weight (for numerous reasons - behavioral, medical, etc.).
"Assuming no changes in behavior" doesn't make sense, because the drug makes people feel full after a smaller amount of calories and thus changes behavior.
Don’t you ever eat sweets despite of not being hungry? I don’t think the issue is people overdosing rice or legumes because they are so hungry. The issue seems to me like quick comfort foods that we eat not to get full but because they just feel so good in our mouths. I don’t think I’ve ever eaten ice cream out of hunger:)
Yeah, I agree with all of that, but I would differentiate slightly between not being hungry and being full. I snack when I'm not necessarily hungry, but I don't snack right after I've eaten a full meal and am actively full.
Anyway, semantics of hunger/fullness aside, the effect of the drug is behavioral - people taking it do end up eating significantly less, which leads to substantial weight loss.
Also it is much easier to pass those snacks and other stuff when you are full or not hungry. If this is consistent state, it can also effect how accessible at other times snacks and such are.
It says that you can find a new job in your new location, continue to work your current job remotely or start a new business to qualify. Seems like the remote work category would be the easiest sell.
That number seems so low I don’t know who they’re hoping to leave. Or they don’t have a plan in that regard. Real numbers would be like “discounted rail tickets” or some per month stipend for the additional costs. Or maybe it’s just to get homeless people to say they’re leaving.
There are around 4,000 homeless people in all of Japan. A country of 125 million. A number so small I doubt it has any impact on the policy whatsoever.
> In case it's not obvious to everyone reading here, no one recommends using the cry it out method on infants younger than six months.
This is wrong. Various methods recommend starting as early as four months (and some recommend a less-strict version that starts earlier but only leaves children to cry for a shorter period of time before coming to get them, as opposed to fully crying it out).
It's astounding to me that so many people on HN, a place where folks generally profess to be driven by science and data, are in this thread just casually throwing around anecdotes and comments about evolutionary instinct while completely ignoring the actual science and data. Doubly so when so many of the comments are pretty vicious towards people who sleep train their babies.
>>Parents who are frustrated with frequent waking or who are sleep deprived may be tempted to try sleep training techniques that recommend letting a baby cry in an effort to "teach" him to "self-soothe".
>>Research shows us that an infant is not neurologically or developmentally capable of calming or soothing himself to sleep in a way that is healthy. The part of the brain that helps with self-soothing isn't well developed until the child is two and a half to three years of age. Until that time, a child depends on his parents to help him calm down and learn to regulate his intense feelings.
It's so weird to me that you're throwing around attachmentparenting.org links like they are the final objective word on the subject. It would be like linking to the American Enterprise Institute in a discussion on economics. They are smart and well read on the subject, but they are pushing their own point of view, which is far from being the only one.
But the fact that things can cause negative consequences is not sufficient reason to ban them. The obvious example here is alcohol - it is beyond clear from data that alcohol is incredibly harmful. It is beyond clear that it is more harmful than at least some banned substances (marijuana, LSD, MDMA). It is likely that it is more harmful than harder substances like cocaine, but with less data on those we can't say for sure.
So yes, there are negative consequences, but as a society we have decided that we allow people to do things that cause negative consequences (as evidenced by the legality of alcohol). There are limits on that, but with alcohol as a line by which to judge those limits, it's clear that to have any kind of coherent public policy, marijuana should be legal. Or, of course, alcohol could be made illegal. The point is that if you think that alcohol should be legal but other drugs should not, you're just engaging in hypocrisy.