Don’t underestimate the power of status quo. Also, how unpopular it is to criminalize things.

Also, Germany has coalition governments. As long as there is no CDU/CSU and AfD coalition (and then Germany would have worse problems than recreational marijuana) at least one of the currently governing parties will be part of the next coalition.

Given that together with how hard the status quo is to change I’m relatively optimistic. Even though the conservative highly irrational, science and fact denying course is deeply worrying. So they might be ready to govern with fascists. But then, as I said, recreational marijuana is not my most pressing worry.

That is very true but I am still doubtful for the future of this law even in the light of a new coalition, because the support for this law specifically or legalization in general or both in the current one is already weak.

Obviously the re-evaluation will show no positive effects on the black market because there's no legal way to buy your drugs (aside from home-grown or cannabis social clubs).

So there's a giant black market in spain? No. Everyone just goes to a fucking social club down their street.

I was taking the train south to north through Switzerland about 20 years ago (back when they still had smoking cars) and the kids in the Abteil in front of me were smoking some kind of funny smelling cigarettes that didn't stay lit.

The conductor came stamping down the aisle, with a grim look upon his face, and started to chew the kids out. They apologised, and he left, whereupon they continued to kiff but promptly put newspapers down on the seats across, protecting them from their shoes while they had their feet up...

Smell of cigars is worse (yes, that's an opinion), but "legal".

I never understood how people could smoke cigarettes- they just smell awful. Cigars on the other hand, I could get used to that.

Only the right are against it and if we vote for them we have much bigger problems like mass deportation and more policing...

That is not true, support in the current coalition is already weak. There is a reason why this law took almost until the end of the election period to come to pass.

Especially our current health minister, who is responsible for the law, is well know for being against legalization. He only bowed to the pressure of the coalition.

We'll see. I'm hopefully optimistic that will show that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol.

It's also far less dangerous for general health than sugar, which is ubiquitous and fed to children with no restraints. There is no argument for health to restrict cannabis for adults, the risks are well-known, and people are engaging in it, particularly in abuse, with full knowledge. Even the dangers of sugar are still not so well-known, as supermarket shelves demonstrate.

THC is a hallucinogen. It can trigger psychosis. I know a person who committed suicide because of this. I know more people who kinda threw their lives away and became total slackers, because they were high all the time in their late teens.

A single dose is probably irrelevant for health. But I’d argue that (mental) health would suffer way more than compared to all health effects of sugar.

I’m not against legalizing cannabis, but the cannabis community downplays the risks of regular consumption a lot.

> But I’d argue that (mental) health would suffer way more than compared to all health effects of sugar.

Have you seen the mental health statistics? What they all have in common in having been raised, and living on, refined sugar (and other foods unsuitable for human consumption), not cannabis.

I'm not saying cannabis is a always a good idea, but even so mainly because it's often in the context of having already frail health, and combination, oftentimes with literal poisons like alcohol.

There's a huge hypocrisy around it being a question of public health; it's not, if it were, sugar would be highly taxed and regulated (esp. not being marketed to children), alcohol would be banned, etc. It still surprises me this hasn't permeated yet, as the information is now widely available.

THC is not a hallucinogen, it's a cannabinoid.

How do you know the cause of your acquaintance's suicide?

Overconsumption is very dangerous for some, look up cannabis hyperemesis syndrome. It can be a help, but tolerance creeps quickly and encourages ever higher doses.

Cannabis hypermedia syndrome? This is too funny... :D

(obviously, you meant cannabis hyperemesis syndrome - https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/diseases-and-con...)

lol autocorrect, thank you! hypermedia syndrome is worse - you end up watching teletubbies over and over. also causing scromiting.

I recommend some LSD with that Cannabis to truly appreciate the Teletubbies!

I've always been puzzled by the argument that, since cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol, we should therefore remove legal disincentives for cannabis consumption rather than the seemingly more logical conclusion we should try to disincentivize alcohol consumption. If it is a matter of harm, you don't remove disincentives on less harmful things simply because there are less/no disincentives on more harmful things.

Of course, if we're instead making an argument about liberty, matters are different.

It makes sense if you care about both harm and liberty though.

We've already decided alcohol is fine from a liberty perspective, so if the argument against cannabis is from a harm perspective, and cannabis is less harmful than alcohol, then cannabis should be fine too.

I'm not sure that we (in the US) decided alcohol was fine from a liberty perspective, I think it was more the social consequences of Prohibition appeared to some to outweigh the evils it was fighting and to be somewhat ineffective to boot. For something as socially acceptable as drinking, it probably would have been better to take the sort of tack that was taken against cigarettes: increasingly high taxation, relentless educational campaigns beginning in childhood, advertising bans, regulation, bans on flavors etc., culminating decades later in total bans like what is now planned in some countries.

"disincentivising", also known as "war on drugs" is making criminals more rich and police more corrupt.

"dry laws" have also mostly resulted in proliferation of illegal alcohol sales and criminal groups dealing with that.

perhaps harm reduction should be dealt with in a different way than prohibition and use of force.

A society determines which harmful substances (and its effects on the individual and the society) it tolerates and how. Alcohol is in Germany tolerated (more than in the US) and it is also a huge legal business.

I'm for tolerating both alcohol and cannabis, but without mass marketing (ads, ...).

One struggle we face is the large inflow of other drugs, the resulting damage (for example from crack) currently from south America, the import of crime from there and the use of the drug business of legal cannabis business to expand their other drug business.

> is making criminals more rich and police more corrupt.

And youngsters who smoke weed in the streets learn to hate cops. Which may or may not be a bad thing.

you're correct, but prohibition when not largly accepted socially have bad consequences.

My (US) colleagues were bitterly disappointed that although the tracks on DTH's 1998 christmas album are available via YouTube, they were missing out on the liner note recipe for Christstollen nach Alice B. Toklas'r Art: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wir_warten_auf’s_Christkind#Ar... ; don't germans have at least a half century experience with cannabis v. alcohol by now?

EDIT: even Duden knows how to kiff (schwaches Verb; Perfektbildung mit „hat“), see https://www.duden.de/konjugation/kiffen