We have done much better. Look at tobacco usage. It hasn't plummeted because it was outlawed.

I don't think we'd necessarily get the same plummet with marijuana, because the health story isn't quite as uniformly bad, and I get the sense that pot users don't get as acclimated as cigarette users, who seem to be smoking not to feel good but to avoid withdrawal. (Just on the drug's own terms, tobacco is a really bad deal; the ratio of "high" to harm is just atrocious. If it wasn't so addictive nobody would use it on a regular basis.) But we could probably get some improvement if the messaging got more realistic. And by "improvement" I don't just mean "less", but better; less adolescents smoking some of their most important cognitive years away, more people using THC for correct medicinal uses, and if one chooses to smoke it recreationally, better informed choices.

I'm in favor of legalization, because marijuana prohibition is not as bad as alcohol prohibition was, but it's the same sort of thing even if less of it. I still plan on telling my children quite strongly the best move is not to play.

> Look at tobacco usage. It hasn't plummeted because it was outlawed.

Disagree to some extent. Outlawing of most indoor smoking has decreased usage significantly. Also disagree with reasons for smoking vs not since many do smoke recreationally to feel good as opposed to fear of withdrawal. Sure, most of the addicted are the latter, but the laws are there to target everyone.

It was regulated. It was not outlawed.

Nobody seems to be saying they want unregulated marijuana usage, so it seems comparable. (If nothing else, everyone agrees it should be taxed, and that is already a form of regulation.)

> Nobody seems to be saying they want unregulated marijuana usage, so it seems comparable

Comparing outlawed, regulated, or unregulated without nuance is unfair. Things can be effectively outlawed, overly regulated, unenforced thereby unregulated, etc. Instead of focusing on the words, we should focus on the effect. To restate my previous claims in terms that hopefully won't be misinterpreted, "Increased regulation/restrictions on smoking has decreased usage significantly."

I'd say the reason it is not comparable is it is adding restrictions instead of removing them. To go from 0 to a set of regulations is one thing, but since that is not the case, the direction matters as much as the result.

as an ex-smoker who sometimes relapses for short periods, for me it's not to avoid withdrawal. It relieves stress and anxiety, and also gives me an excuse to step out of the office for a few minutes for a break or to collect my thoughts.

Classic tactic in the military: I wasn't a smoker, but under certain circumstances, I'd carry a pack with me so I could have a "smoke" break. Sometimes people would call me out, so I'd light one up without inhaling until that person left. Then I'd just give the cigarette to an actual smoker.

> It relieves stress and anxiety, and also gives me an excuse to step out of the office for a few minutes for a break or to collect my thoughts.

Should we really need excuses to step out of the office to get some fresh air, collect our thoughts, etc for a few minutes?

I think there is much to be said about cigarettes relieving stress and anxiety...

There does seem to be suspicion around leaving your desk to do “nothing”.

I once worked at a place where a lot of my colleagues would take smoke breaks and thought it was unfair. I loudly started taking gum breaks where I would go outside and smack peppermint gum for 5-10 minutes before throwing it in the trash and going back inside. Sometimes I would head out at the same time as the smokers so that I got to participate in the chitchat (which was unreasonably valuable from a professional perspective), and I would complain about how it wasn’t socially acceptable to chew gum at your desk like in the eighties when everyone did it. It was softly mocking, but no one objected.

As often as it is mocked, this is one of the things I really value in the whole "micro kitchens away from the open-plan office" lies.

Nicotine is a stimulant. I'd argue that stepping out of the office for a few minutes is what relaxes you and reduces your anxiety, not the cigarette. Unless you're a regular smoker when smoking stops withdrawal symptoms. (I'm an ex-20-a-day smoker)

smoking definitely reduces stress when smoking, but it also makes you a more stressful person.

Its like rubbing yourself with poison ivy, just so you can have the relief of itching a scratch

the stress and anxiety relief also works outside the office, otherwise I wouldn't bring it up.

Stepping away from your issues and gaining new perspective can be just as effective as drugs.

Source: performance enhancing cannabis user

We can do much better? What the hell does that mean? More drug prohibition? Yeah, that's been working out just peachy.

Portugal's decriminalization of all drugs has led to a sharp drop across the board in drug usage and an increase in effective rehabilitative outcomes.

I believe that we should expect responsible behavior from adults. Only this way a society can also develop responsibility. By prohibiting everything that is dangerous (or just considered as such) humans never actually get a chance to grow up.

It's sort of a balancing act between building safety rails so that people don't accidentally fall off cliffs while hiking while also allowing people the agency to free climb El Cap if they so choose...

You totally make a valid point. But I would literally remove all those safety rails. People just have to keep a safe distance from the edge of the cliff.

Isn't it likely that the rails were put in place as a response to people not keeping a safe distance from the edge of the cliff?

I often see this assumption that regulations appear from thin air as a way to keep people down. It seems more possible that they primarily come as a result of witnessing the reality of what happens with no regulations.

I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.

It is impossible to put safety rails everywhere (both literally and metaphorically). Some people will try to make selfies on the edge and fall to their death - very tragic - but why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.

I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear - safety rails would sometimes fail. Typical example is the safety belt in cars - people suddenly drove faster. Or with helmets - rugby is less physically harmful than American football due to less protection. The examples refer to the mindset, though - of course I use safety belts but I also don't get too close to the edge of a cliff.

==I think the prevalent assumption on HN is that every regulation can be traced back to some accident or mistake.==

My experience on HN is quite the opposite, but that is besides the point.

==why do I have to keep those people alive with my tax payments or even be annoyed from the sight of a rail in the middle of nature.==

This is libertarian ideology in the real-world. Your argument is that your annoyance is as valuable or more valuable than someone else's potential death. In a civilized/democratic society, we have created a governmental system to make these decisions for us and to the betterment of the country at large, not just you. Stop lights are a regulation and annoyance to my car driving, if I stopped heeding them, do you think that makes society better or worse off?

==I also think that most accidents happen from overtrusting a safety gear==

Based on what? Do you have any evidence or just your personal observation/assumption?

It seems like you've lost the forest from the trees here. Specifically on safety belts, they save many more lives than they could ever cost as evidenced by empirical research:

==Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%.==

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbeltbrief/index.h...

Well, I am not a Libertarian. I am for regulation in many cases. The difference between a safety rail and traffic lights are this. When I approach an intersection then my health depends more the prudence of the car's driver also approaching the intersection and crossing my path. So putting traffic lights people at least know who can drive and who should stop. But a cliff is an obvious threat. There is nothing insidious about it. If that cliff would be close to an elementary school - then I would be for safety rails, though. Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.

Regarding safety belts - I think you didn't get my point. I didn't say they aren't saving lives. I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind.

==But a cliff is an obvious threat.==

But there are also other people around and animals and high wind speeds and any number of other factors that impact safety. I bet you still follow stop lights when nobody is coming the other way.

==Because children are not responsible and hence have to be protected from them self.==

This is an argument for putting rails on cliffs, as children are not barred from cliffs. Seems like you have talked yourself into a pretzel.

==I said that back when they didn't exist people drove more careful. With all those protection in place in cars - many people drive more reckless having those protections in mind. ==

I get the point, people may drive more recklessly because they feel protected by the seatbelt. I would say that all regulations are a cost-benefit equation. In the case of seatbelts, the benefit of more people living is larger than the cost of lost freedom.

Portugal's decriminalization is not the same as legalization; it could itself be viewed as "doing better". I personally am for legalization, but in terms of reducing consumption, it might be more effective.

> The fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal doesn't mean we should legalise all drugs that are somewhat healthier than alcohol and tobacco. I think we can do much better.

You're right. We can do better. I think it shows our hypocrisy. Nobody should get a fine or go to prison for possession of drugs. I think what we should focus on is distribution/sale of controlled substances without a proper label.

I don't do drugs so maybe I am out of touch but this is my opinion. Possession of anything should not be a crime (improper storage of hazardous material is a different story).

If you insist on sending people to prison for smoking pot, you might as well get ready to send me to prison for eating too much candy.

There already are many places where the selling of sugar and caffeine-ridden products is controlled.

You seem to be aggressively pushing a political agenda in this thread by making several consistent generalist statements without providing a single source of evidence.

> There already are many places where the selling of sugar and caffeine-ridden products is controlled.

I think you are moving the goal posts here.

For one, I fully support regulation. By regulation, I mean education and truth in advertising. People should absolutely have their assets stripped and sent to prison for life for false advertising and bribing/intimidating researchers to produce bad science or knowingly lying about their products in general.

Additionally, I am not talking about putting people in prison for selling mislabeled candy. I absolutely support legislation that sends people to prison for life for selling candy that is not labeled properly or has a labeling inconsistent with its contents.

I am talking about imprisoning ME for possessing sugar and caffeine-ridden products that I intend to eat or serve to my guests at home. Are you willing to arrest me for eating candy? Are you willing to search me "randomly" on the streets because you think I have candy in my pockets?

“Do much better” is a platitude - it conveys zero information as to what you actually believe should be done differently.

We should move towards the elimination of all drugs.

Prohibition has worked wonderfully well for tobacco in many countries, cutting consumption in half and even more.

We should move towards the elimination of authoritarianism. Giving those the right to push their beliefs, no matter how apparently beneficial, cuts human freedoms. Let people do what they want to do as long as it doesn't harm others. It's not your business otherwise.

The problem is that you have big financial interest from tabacoo (or other) industry that promotes consumption of X and on the other hand you have an under-budgeted health department that will try to spread information and make studies etc. So the average person will be tricked by the gigantic adverting campaigns... my point a person can't do a correct choice when big money companies have the intrest he does the wrong choice.

It's funny you brought up tobacco, since it's a counter-example to your point.

Somehow, even with Big Tobacco putting tons of money towards promotion and an under-funded health department spreading information, we've arrived at a society where a) nobody can deny that tobacco consumption is harmful (and be seen as sane) and b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).

It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

>>b) tobacco consumption is declining (nicotine use may not be, but it's also not clear that nicotine use alone is as harmful).

Sure it's not "as harmful" but a shotgun isn't as harmful as a nuclear bomb. Relative harm isn't important here, it's just "ability to cause harm" and understanding the likelihood that could happen. A car can cause harm, but most people drive safely. Nobody smokes a pack a day for 30 years with ill effects. We're not sure exactly what happens is you vape the equivalent level of just nicotine and additives, but we're pretty sure it's not going to be a good thing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4363846/

>It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

Yeah let's not take a few decades this time around? You're basically talking about an entire person's life at some scale.

>It took a few decades to get there, but it worked.

Better to count lives not decades though

"Prohibition has worked wonderfully well for tobacco in many countries"

Examples? As far as I know in most western countries tobacco "prohibition" is limited to interior common spaces, not in private homes or in the open (say, on the street).

It is actively discouraged (and in that it has been very succesful) through PSAs, medical counseling, warnings on packets, high taxes and the mentioned public bans, but that's not "prohibition".

"Prohibition" is more akin to the alcohol ban in the US in the 1920s, or the current status for drugs in most countries.

In all cases it has been far from successful, the only things that are accomplished is favoring the black market and related criminal activities.

> We should move towards the elimination of all drugs.

I agree. While we're at it, also elimination of all crime and immorality. Let's start by executing offenders on the spot. Guaranteed to deter drug usage in adolescents. And adultery, too.

Also, we could and should do better than allow people to harm themselves by unhealthy food choices. It logically follows that we need to ban cheeseburgers and sugary drinks!

And? It is not your choice to tell me if I wanna get buzzed or not.

I don't mind others smoking. I mind wrong advertising, advertising to kids, cigarettbutts, the stink etc.

Would you seriously contend that prohibition doesn't come with awful side effects? The cartels in Mexico and South America are big fans.

We tackle smoking and alcohol abuse through education (and tax, to a certain extent). Meanwhile prohibition is being selectively enforced in the US to criminalize being non-white. I see zero reason to continue the madness, and economics, social science, and history tend to agree.

We should start a war on drugs and check back in in 40 years.

wow. you have some scary views. how about you mind your own business and let others do the same.

> how about you mind your own business and let others do the same.

said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯

they're actively advocating to legislate this stuff. /shrug /shrug /shrug /shrug /shrug

>Prohibition has worked wonderfully well

It very much hasn't. The War on Drugs is very much a catastrophic failure, claiming the lives of millions with no tangible improvement to control drug addiction. Meanwhile liberalisation and decriminalization programmes (e.g. Portugal for decriminalization and de facto tolerance without legalisation) have been much more successful. When will you start looking at empirical evidence and realise prohibition simply doesn't work?

How is tobacco prohibited? Smoking in public spaces is prohibited, but tobacco is still legal to buy, own, smoke or use in any way you want.

I just upvoted your comment because it is the truth and most probably you will be heavily downvoted for not being mainstream :)

It is literally false. There are only two countries with actual tobacco prohibition, Bhutan and Turkmenistan, and only since 2005 and 2016, respectively. We have decades of evidence from dozens of countries that total prohibition of recreational drugs is disastrous. Sensible regulation is what's needed.

Prohibition doesn’t work. Legalization and regulation do. Alcohol and Tobacco are the proof. We can do much better than a cure which has shown to be worse than the disease.

Legalization mostly works in the way that more people consume it. (punishing the use does not lead anywhere either).

Legalization of cannabis in the The Netherlands lowered usage amongst teens. Making pot less accessible to teens was one of Trudeau’s primary arguments for legalization in Canada. Street dealers have a lot of reasons to not ask for ID.

This was proven false by the Portuguese drug decriminalization program.

Decriminalization is not legalization, though. It still makes it harder to access the stuff, for example, and risky to grow your own.

Not that it's especially hard to buy pot in Portugal, but still, can't exactly get it at the corner store.

There are very definitely ways to do decriminalization that result in lowered usage: Portugal and heroin is the standard example.

Legalizing is doing better.

Also society doesn't has the right to keep some drugs illegal while keeping others legal.

Stop criminalising someone who chose another drug than you prefer.

Illegal should it be when it harms others.

There is a big difference between criminalising/punishing people and hyping drugs as all those cannabis activists do. Smoking may be your personal choice - but I honestly think it would be bad for society if the majority did it. There is a reason that under current law using/selling drugs is punished: society as a whole might suffer.

Those "cannabis activists" are most likely a (very vocal) minority... I don't know of anyone that _seriously_ hypes pot as a safe thing, and we have a lot of smokers here in Quebec (last official numbers were ~15% in 2015, pretty sure it's actually higher than that), so it's not hard to find one. There was probably "alcohol activists" back in prohibition, so I'd say this could also be a side-effect of its illegal status.

> There is a reason that under current law using/selling drugs is punished

There was also a law that prohibited alcohol for a time. I am also prohibited under Canadian law from pretending to practice witchcraft. Talking about differences, there is a big difference between legal and legitimate.

"There is a reason that under current law using/selling drugs is punished: society as a whole might suffer."

Hate to break it to you, but the "war on drugs" was and is really a war on minorities, and a war against alternatives to prescription drugs (among about a half dozen other nefarious reasons).

When I was 12 I would have believed that "drugs are bad and what's why they're illegal" - I'm no longer 12.

You know why its getting hyped? Because its fucking illegal!

Have you ever seen a protestor doing a slightly active protest? No. You hype it.

Srsly make it legal, disallow certain ways of advertising it, done.

Tobacco shows probably the most effective way to reduce consumption of something - make it legal, but put heavy sin taxes on it. It's hard to keep a heavy cigarette habit going when a pack of Marlboros is like $10.

I don't smoke marijuana, but I'd like to see it legalized, if for no other reason than to shift law enforcement resources to more important things - when people are dying every day from Fentanyl overdoses, busting pot smokers and growers is asinine.

Heavy taxing and regulation will be (and is) a boon to the cannabis black market. In my state (MA), cannabis was legalized, but individual towns are preventing recreational shops from opening. The result? A booming, home-grown cannabis market.

Why? Why shouldnt we legalize all drugs that are healthier than drugs we have already deemed healthy enough to be legal?

Sure, we can do much better. For example, how about we recognize that bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right, and that includes deciding what to put into said body?

Humans have always done drugs. We have smoked pot specifically for thousands of years.

Why do you want to keep adults from making decisions about what to put into their body?

The fact that my kids can get illegal drugs more easily than alcohol is what worries me.

Making drugs illegal isn’t helping. Addicts need support services, not punishment.

This. Drug dealers don't care if you're 7 or 70. I could get a dimebag in 5 minutes anytime in high school. Alcohol, on the other hand, took weeks of planning to obtain.

That argument is backwards. If marijuana is illegal for the stated reason that it has negative health affects, then everything that has worse affects should also be illegal.

Invent better drugs?

Invent a better way of life so reality is the coolest thing possible.

There’s nothing other than reality. Drugs are part of reality. Have been for millenia.

Drugs are the some of tools I use to make reality the coolest thing possible.

Define "coolest".

If parts of reality are better than others this is probably due to internal responses. Every bit of sense-data modifies the internal brain state.

It follows that with sufficient control we can modify the brain, or the sense-data to create an experience akin to the coolest parts of whatever way of life we make.

Your considerations on whether synthetic reality is better, and whether all reality is effectively synthetic will then inform your conclusion on this meaning a modified view can always in theory beat reality.

In practice one will probably just chase a bigger high until the high is so risky that it eventually kills you.

legislating morality isn't much better. it's draconian and often theocratic.