A way to "solve" this might be (and it'd be incredibly hard) to give a constitutional right for "uneven exercise of the law" or something of that sort to be a defence against most charges: If you could demonstrate that cases are selectively investigated or prosecuted other than by clear, published standards (e.g. based on amount of available evidence), the law in question should be considered null and void until the legislative has affirmed it again.

It'd be difficult to get something like that just right so that the bar is high enough (no chance of getting laws stricken down just because police is under-unded and has to prioritise and are trying their best) but still low enough to prevent abuse, and it'd put a burden of collecting a lot of statistics and do a lot of analysis on police to ensure they don't have undue biases, but it's work they should be doing anyway.

There'd still be the option of the legislative to intentionally pass the laws again, scold the police and do nothing to actually change things, but if the bar is low enough and it happens with a lot of laws, they'd be swamped...

Another thing I'd like to see is a legal requirement that laws comes with a set of pre- and post-conditions that the law is based on. E.g. "Given that it's proven that X causes Y effect, we pass this law" and "The intent of this law is to achieve a X reduction in Y behaviour within Z timerame", and give courts the power to suspend laws where the conditions provably don't hold...

Requiring laws to be regularly re-affirmed would be another fun thing - forcing people to go on record voting for a law that today sounds antiquated and that their opponents would use to club them over the head with in the press might substantially increase the chances of having bad laws stricken down... Even "just" requiring laws to be re-affirmed if X years have gone with less than Y prosecutions would be a big deal.

A lot of problems are down to legislatives being able to pass laws and then largely wash their hands of the whole thing and not worry about the consequences or whether or not the laws have the desired effect as long as it doesn't affect the people voting for them too much. Unfortunately that's also exactly the reason we're unlikely to see it happen - it's not in their interest to have to consider the fallout.

There is a "selective prosecution" defense [1]. In tax law, there is a "selective enforcement" defense [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_prosecution

[2] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1933943

Selective prosecution isn't much of a defense, as you'll see if you read the linked article.

It is a very precarious situation which I think extends beyond the marijuana industry, even in the US. What you said about China reminded me of the book Three Felonies A Day, which explains how modern federal crime laws put US citizens in a similar position of being extorted at the whims of the state.

It seems like there could be an opportunity for some kind of mutual aid arrangement -- an insurance policy of sorts -- that could underwrite the legal fees for a member who happens to get busted.

You might try to make the argument that if enforecement is highly inconsistent that it's being done with bias. Not sure a judge would agree but it seems to be a reasonable argument. If the Feds are not enforcing a law, what's the point of the law?

Similar to how trademarks can be voided if they are not consistently defended.

Edit: written before I saw vidarth's comment.

It is probably a primary indication of a corrupt state, as it allows for selective law application.

"For my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law." – Oscar R. Benavides, President of Peru.

What scares me is that we've pursued this in such 'medical' terms.

It really influences how people think. Remember when it seemed insane to see advertisments about how "8 out of 10 doctors recommend ___ brand cigarettes"?

It doesn't seem crazy to me now that there is so much "health" based marketing around marijuana.

And how the tobacco companies are evil and terrible but hey! Wanna smoke pot? That's all GOOD!

Marijuana should be legal but discouraged, not permitted to be advertised, put in plain packaging, kept behind counters and not turned into novelty products that appeal to teenagers like foods.

Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.

> Marijuana should be legal but discouraged, not permitted to be advertised, put in plain packaging, kept behind counters and not turned into novelty products that appeal to teenagers like foods.

All of these requirements are implemented in the Washington state roll out. Re: discouraged, there are radio ads warning parents to talk to their kids about the dangers of marijuana. There is zero advertising and everything is behind counters at special stores that don't sell anything else.

> Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.

Hey, why leave out the other big sin drug? Alcohol gets a lot more free roam in advertising and sale/visibility in stores minors can visit.

I live in Washington State and there is advertising. Giant billboards for pot companies. They don't directly advertise smoking pot, but who's kidding, everyone knows what they're advertising...

Yeah, this is pushing the line... I'm surprised something like that slipped through the regulations. There's no need to allow billboard advertising of any kind.

http://www.kplu.org/post/seattle-sees-first-marijuana-billbo...

Looking at the bigger picture (if your intent is decreasing harm), I would work on limiting the alcohol advertising before trying to hinder the already limited marijuana advertising.

Let's also ban advertising for prescription drugs while we're at it too. America and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow this and it's turned pharma companies into pill pushers instead of companies trying to find and produce cures for real diseases...

>Hard to see how it's much different to tobacco really.

For one, you don't have to smoke it (where the majority of negative health effects come from). You can eat it, steep it, drink it.

Comparing it to tobacco is ridiculous.

you can also insufflate or chew tobacco. i don't find the comparison ridiculous at all. both contain psychoactive subtances, and can lead to serious health issues, or a decline in quality of life (tobacco of course being more dangerous than weed).

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances ever studied. THC is not physiologically addictive.

are you serious? thc and nicotine are two different drugs. they are different. they do different things. and the sky is blue and 2 plus 2 equals 4.

you don't have to smoke cannabis to get thc. you can eat it, and many people do.

if you just don't like the idea of it, that's one thing and completely understandable, but claiming (even rhetorically) it's the same as tobacco is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on hn.

> are you serious? thc and nicotine are two different drugs. they are different. they do different things. and the sky is blue and 2 plus 2 equals 4.

They are different, but they have many similarities. They're used under similar circumstances. The business model around them is very similar. I would expect the industry that forms around it to ultimately behave very much like the tobacco/alcohol/etc. industries, and so it is weird to treat one differently from the other. Or do you think there are important differences?

I seriously doubt marijuana consumers tolerate harmful chemical additives. I expect marijuana businesses to behave about as badly as the average business, but I doubt they'll manage to be as hideously evil as the tobacco companies.

And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?

>I seriously doubt marijuana consumers tolerate harmful chemical additives.

Why would they be any different from tobacco consumers?

>I expect marijuana businesses to behave about as badly as the average business, but I doubt they'll manage to be as hideously evil as the tobacco companies.

Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?

>And what do you mean they're used under similar circumstances?

They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?

> Why would they be any different from tobacco consumers?

Marijuana attracts an earthy, naturalistic sort of crowd. I have no proof of this, but it's been my experience.

> Don't most of the factors that make tobacco different from the average business apply equally to cannabis?

The health risks of marijuana are much better understood now than the health risks of tobacco (more particularly cigarettes) were in the 1950s. There's simply less room to lie, for one thing, which was far and away the most atrocious thing that Big Tobacco did. And the mere fact that marijuana has been illegal for so long and developed its own culture underground makes it hard to compare.

> They seem to serve a similar social function. Indeed don't people frequently smoke a mix of the two?

In Europe it's common to mix the two, but for most Americans no. I usually smoked alone anyway, it's not a social thing at all for many. You're really comparing apples to oranges here. Marijuana and tobacco as different as LSD and beer in terms of their effects.

I don't know why you wouldn't think he was serious. I think you are ignoring that the vast majority of people that use pot smoke it. In that sense, it's probably worse because most people that smoke weed tend to hold the smoke in their lungs for protracted periods of time which increases the amount of tar that gets in their lungs.

I know this is completely anecdotal, but I think casual pot smokers do about two or three bong hits a night versus sneaking out for an entire cigarette twenty times a day.

To pile onto the anecdote wagon:

The heaviest pot smokers I know (and I know a lot, though I don't generally use, myself), will consume it as much as four or five times a day. As you note, one "usage" looks like a few hits off of a pipe, bong, or vape. It seems to be self-limiting, even in people with a history of addiction.

I'm not gonna suggest pot doesn't have negative consequences; the heaviest users I know also have motivation problems (but so do I, sometimes, and I don't do any drugs) which maybe contributes to them often having shitty jobs and a difficult hand-to-mouth existence. (But, that is correlation and not causation. Maybe the economy is shit, and young folks today have a hard time finding good work. Maybe smoking pot just makes it bearable.)

What's interesting to me is what happens when a pot smoker can't get pot. Among my friends, cigarette smoking goes way up, drinking goes up measurably, and use of other drugs goes up. I'd be willing to believe pot is a good tool for helping people quit more dangerous habits. People who need something help them get through stress/anxiety/pain (emotional or physical) will find something.

My classmates, which are started to smoke marijuana in school, now are dead (I am 40 years old). They die not because of tar or something like that, but because they switched to heavy drugs.

What's your point?

It is fact from my life. 4 my classmates started to smoke in school, when they were 14 years old. Then somebody told them how to make cheap drug from papaver, which is called «shirka» there. Now they are dead.

Could be the gateway argument, that smoking less harmful stuff leads to harder stuff.

An argument I would attempt to counter - the market is the gateway. The dealer you buy your illegal cannabis from often also sells 'harder' drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.

>> claiming (even rhetorically) it's the same as tobacco is one of the stupidest things i've ever read on hn

Fools read and hear what they want to hear and then make something up and say that's what was said.

Tobacco - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.

Pot - breathe non-air stuff into your lungs enough, it kills you.

i don't think that's how science determines if two things are the same. i think you just made that up because it sounds clever. unfortunately, that's not how things work in reality.

i also don't think you understand that you don't have to smoke pot. you can eat it. in medicine this is called 'oral administration'. you can't just ignore facts you don't like, that's not how medicine and science work.

most drugs are eaten. pot is a drug. you can eat it. you can use drugs to treats disease and symptoms. therefore, you can use pot to treat diseases and symptoms... by eating it.

i don't understand what your mental disconnect is, other than you just don't like the idea of pot, which is fine, but you should just say that, because then it becomes a moral argument, which is what you're trying to have, rather than a medical one, which is pretty black and white - pot is a drug, and you can use drugs to treat diseases and symptoms. that's pretty much a fact. again, i'm not really sure where the disconnect here is for you. this is a pretty simple logical chain. maybe you don't consider pot to be a drug?

i've never met anyone who doesn't think pot is a drug, but i suppose it's possible.

but really i think you just don't like the idea of it, which is a perfectly respectable opinion to have.

I don't care if people want to smoke pot. I think it's a waste of life and you'll get more out of life straight than stoned but I really don't care what others choose to do with their own lives. In fact I am very much supportive of full legalisation of sale and possession of ALL drugs except meth, despite the fact that the only drugs I take are alcohol and coffee.

No matter how it is ingested, marijuana is like all drugs and pose a health risk if not taken in moderation.

Health risks from smoking it (and most people do smoke it), and no matter how you ingest it, mental health risks.

This is not a harmless drug and there will come a time in future where there are court cases brought by marijuana sellers for selling a toxic product - in the same way that tobacco has been brought to trial. My key argument is that marijuana should be sold under the counter to meet a need that is kept hidden from society and young people, but is freely available to adults who know it is there. Selling it, advertising it, displaying it in a shopfront, making it fun and cool are all really bad ways to go.

It's a LOT less harmful than tobacco. It also is usable in many non-smoking forms. Tobacco chew and snuff still give you cancer. But, since USA has outlawed research there is ver limited data on how not bad cannabis is.

And so does India. Marijuana was legal in India til 1985 then US government forced Indian government criminalize it.

The USA did the same thing in the early nineties in Laos when it started to open up.

Why did the US gvmnt do that?

>Why did the US government do that?

Prohibition has many causes. The international treaty / 'Single Convention' was the first international treaty to prohibit cannabis.

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research. As noted below, its major effects included updating the Paris Convention of 13 July 1931 to include the vast number of synthetic opioids invented in the intervening thirty years and a mechanism for more easily including new ones.

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

The US uses the DEA to project political power into areas where a military presence would be rejected

My question was why did the US government do that.

If you go from the assumption that marijuana is almost as bad as cocaine and heroin — which a lot of policy makers and beurocrats pretty sincerely believed — it makes total sense.

No one actually believes that. Not anyone with any kind of power anyways.

Past and present tense usually refer to different time intervals.

That generation grew up earnestly believing that a single toke would drive you irrevocably insane, to murder, to rape, to jump from a tenth story window.

Watch "Reefer Madness" - it's reflective of the mindset these policymakers grew up with.

If you want to understand where that mindset ultimately came from, look at the history of cocaine prohibition - it boils down to racial politics.

No one smart ever believed that. Dumb people believed (and still do) that. Politicians just seized the opportunity to score some points. Same thing happens now with different topics.

Let us not judge those people as dumb please. I believed so because my parents, teachers and other government experts who visited school told me the same and I had no intention to find out myself.

It is only in modern times as I read more I learned the truth. Not everyone has time to educate themselves on these issues which many not concern them.

I have the same question as another poster - why would the US government want to do it?

Because it was directed to by the legislature and the president.

By whom?

yeah but that's what every government, and many employers, do, everywhere. it's a basic PR strategy for exercising power.

hell, that's even what people do to each other when they want to break up a relationship. your s.o. did something you really can't stand, or maybe you're just over it, but don't want to admit it? blame it on all the other stuff that accumulated over the past 3 years.