[pcl]

The cartels, of course, are adapting to the new reality. Seizure data appears to indicate that with marijuana profits tumbling, they're switching over to heroin and meth.

This is a really interesting development. There's always been this "gateway drug" argument around pot: once people start with marijuana, they'll move onto the harder stuff. I can imagine that there might be a correlation, but I expect that the causality is the other way around: once you break the law a bit for pot, and discover that it's really not a big deal, you assume that the other illegal drugs are probably fine too.

As marijuana becomes more and more legal in the US, it'll be interesting to see which way the causal link goes.

[notthegov]

Cannabis being illegal actually influences people to use prescription drugs and meth. If someone has a job that drug tests them or are on probation, then people will choose harder drugs (or alcohol). The only drug aside from PCP that stays in your system over 3 days is cannabis.

[random_upvoter]

Interestingly, in Colorado it's legal for a company to fire an employee who has (legally) smoked marijuana. So even with legalization drug tests may remain a thing.

[jamesfe]

It's interesting, but taken through some lenses, maybe that's still OK?

I've never smoked, but I wonder if I'd like my doctor to be high when he operates on me, or for an armorer to reassemble my rifle while high. Does marijuana influence attention to detail? Is there a way to ensure that people don't get high while at work, that they stay sober on the job? Anecdotally, from watching high people while I was in university, I don't think I'd trust their giggling selves with my life.

[vectorjohn]

This has always been a really bad argument, the myriad ways it's been made. I wouldn't want my doctor drunk while he operates on me either. But failing a marijuana drug test says absolutely nothing about weather you are under the influence of marijuana. If you could detect alcohol in the blood a week after taking a drink, it would be clearly stupid to have random alcohol tests that cause you to lose your job if a trace is found.

The way to ensure that people do a good job is fire them if they don't do a good job. No need for indirect methods.

[random_upvoter]

> But failing a marijuana drug test says absolutely nothing about weather you are under the influence of marijuana.

I'm not so sure of that. Failing a marijuana drug test means that there's a measurable amount of THC in your body.

[jp555]

Most tests measure THC metabolites, not THC, and in a heavy user these fat solvable compounds can persist for almost a year after cessation.

They are not "under the influence" for those 10 months.

[PixelB]

You may not be so sure of that, but I am.

A "marijuana drug test" usually means testing for THC metabolites, not active THC in your blood stream. These can show up on test results a month after you ingested anything.

Imagine if tomorrow you were called in and they did a test to see if you had a single beer/glass of wine in the last month. Would you pass that test? If you would, great.. I'm willing to put down money that most people wouldn't.

[jp555]

And if she's been working 19 hours without sleep before your surgery? How would you know?

How about an eye surgeon that just had 3 big coffees? I think the fact that you haven't smoked makes your perception of cannabis' effects wildly out of step with reality. I wouldn't trust any of the sober university students I knew performing surgery on me.

[mapt]

You introduce working 19 hours without sleep before surgery as a hyperbolic excess that should get one fired.

In fact, it appears to be routine and required of medical residents in the US. Which is ridiculous.

[visarga]

It seems medical students and their teachers can't apply basic notions of healthy living on themselves. I always wondered why they agree to stay up to 24 or 36 hours per shift. Can't they have 8 hour long work shifts?

[notthegov]

A large part of the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu community, including champions, use cannabis because it helps them get into a flow state and recover from injury.

Obviously this doesn't apply to surgeries, and I can't think of a surgeon who would smoke weed and operate. But in a hypothetical situation, it could allow a person to perform better.

However, if your doctor smokes weed or drinks alcohol in his free time, it doesn't make him a bad doctor.

The real world is more shocking. I know many doctors and surgeons who use cocaine. And there are surgeons who will intentionally do bad surgeries because the profit motive is so high.

Three doctors including a surgeon were arrested today (one from Beverly Hills) and are facing 50+ years in prison for insurance fraud.

Human nature is a scary thing.

[bluejekyll]

This is handled through most jobs requiring that people show up sober to the workplace. The same laws/rules would apply to marijuana. You can't operate heavy machinery while drunk or high, though caffeine and tobacco generally aren't regarded in the same way.

It's foolish to think people will just throw caution to the wind and get high before doing their job.

[random_upvoter]

If your employee is a habitual pot smoker there is still the risk that one day he turns up high for work. Why would you take that risk if you can hire somebody who does not smoke at all?

Other than that, consumption of cannabis is correlated with a bunch of stuff that an employer may want to avoid (for instance increased impulsivity [1])

Given the fact that employers routinely choose to not hire somebody because of even the slightest misgivings, not wanting to employ a pot smoker can hardly be called irrational.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25595054

[xyzzyz]

Why would you take that risk if you can hire somebody who does not smoke at all?

Indeed, that's why I hire only teetotalers. After all, if they like to have a drink now and then, there's still a risk that one day they turn up drunk for work.

[ascagnel_]

You would think this, especially for people operating heavy manufacturing equipment, yet a quick search lists page after page of results where auto workers in assembly plants were busted, fired, and reinstated after being caught drinking and smoking before or on the job.

The first link I got from my search: http://www.torquenews.com/106/chrysler-ordered-rehire-worker...

[gregpilling]

People can get high with edibles, vape pens, body rubs, many ways. Someone you work with could be getting high right now, and you wouldn't know it - they were quitting smoking and vaping, or they got some chocolates (but won't share).

You can't tell, and 50% of the sales at Tucson dispensaries are edibles and concentrates.

So you will have to judge on the work, not if they are giggling. You should be more concerned if your surgeon is ethically compromised so that he would operate impaired by anything - no sleep, alcohol, weed, prescription pain killers. Same for anyone in a life/death job.

I own a factory, and use it for pain management. When I am using it (that day) I won't drive the forklift or use any machinery. I could hurt myself or others by being lost in a weed fog. Instead I do emails, meetings, R&D, etc. while sitting at my desk. Nothing that would kill me if I stopped paying attention for a minute. Forklifts and CNC machinery can definitely kill you if you aren't paying attention.

Your weed smoking armorer would probably not be using when working on weapons. His life could be at stake for a loss of concentration, and he knows it. It's smart to avoid weed induced problems, no altruism needed. Just cover your own ass.

[ams6110]

Lots of people who you would think should know better drive under the influence of alcohol. I think part of the reason is that alcohol impairs judgment. Having never smoked weed, I'm curious about whether there is that same effect. Are you more able to tell yourself "I'm high, I shouldn't drive" than you are "I'm drunk, I shouldn't drive"?

[deelowe]

Absolutely. Pot makes you paranoid man...

[redblacktree]

Anecdotally, yes, people tend to know when they're too stoned to drive.

Here's something addressing a similar question[0]:

> Detrimental effects of cannabis use vary in a dose-related fashion, and are more pronounced with highly automatic driving functions than with more complex tasks that require conscious control, whereas alcohol produces an opposite pattern of impairment. Because of both this and an increased awareness that they are impaired, marijuana smokers tend to compensate effectively while driving by utilizing a variety of behavioral strategies.

[0]: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10550490902786934

[jalk]

There are plenty of legal substances that you don't want you doctor to be on, before he operates on you.

[JupiterMoon]

Do you also refuse to trust people that drank a glass of wine with their dinner several weeks ago?

[drdeca]

That would be absurd for someone to do, but, if someone wants to, well, freedom of association?

Note: I am not strongly committed to this idea I am expressing at the time of this writing. I'm not even sure I am at all committed to it. I do think its a relevant position that seems worth considering, if nothing else.

[JupiterMoon]

> freedom of association?

Two freedoms seem to be conflicting here. Person A's freedom to do legal things in their free time and person B's freedom to not like the other person's choices. I can't stop person B from being prejudiced. However, I argue that person B should not have the right to control person A's legal activities.

[lawpoop]

Is it legal for the doctor to operate on you while drunk? What if s/he used alcohol in the previous 24 hours?

[chefkoch]

With doctors my biggest concern would be their lack of sleep.

[serge2k]

and chronic abuse of sleeping pills resulting from that.

[PhasmaFelis]

You wouldn't want your doctor to be drunk in the operating theater, either, but no one has ever said that people should be fired for drinking on their day off. Why do you think marijuana should be different?

[oxide]

only problem is that drug tests don't prove current intoxication unless it's specifically designed to do so. the drug tests you are referring to, pre-employment and workers comp drug tests, are urinalysis.

you'd know this already if you weren't naive

[sanderjd]

I've made the argument with lots of strongly pro-legalization folks that they should be investing in efforts to develop a reliable test for current intoxication. A lot of the strongest (in my view) anti-legalization arguments stem from the current difficulty to detect things like driving and coming to work under the influence.

[eru]

A simple computer-game like thing (think, a tetris-lookalike) might work.

Problem is: a lot of sober people would fail this test. Of course, you could argue that grandma really shouldn't be driving any more if her reaction times are so bad. Or the sleep-deprived father of three. And you'd be absolutely right and justified.

Such a result would be political suicide, though.

[Zigurd]

Why? It would only feed a new industry of expensive arrests and trials for no good reason.

[koenigdavidmj]

There isn't any protection for consumption of other legal substances either (except when they are prescribed for a health condition); cannabis isn't an exception. Alaska Airlines, for instance, prohibits their employees from using tobacco products even on their own time, and tests to that effect.

[eli]

Keep in mind that the default is that anyone can be fired for any reason. A company is free to fire an employee who has legally smoked cigarettes too (if they wish).

[eru]

I thought you could fire in America for `no reason', but not for `any reason'. Ie you can't fire people for being white or female?

[mkching]

There are certain things such as race and gender which are protected classes. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on these attributes in various ways including employment. [1]

Beyond this, most employment in the US is "at-will", meaning that you can be fired for any reason or no reason. [2]

Some things not explicitly listed as a protected class might still pose problems if its determined that the way in which is it enforced is discriminatory. [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment [3] http://navbat.com/can-you-fire-someone-for-being-too-ugly/

[Mz]

There's always been this "gateway drug" argument around pot

I have studied ...bunches of stuff. And I believe a huge factor is the fact that marijuana is illegal, so you cross an important legal threshold when you try it and that can become a slippery slope. I think details like that probably matter more than the substance per se. Addiction is hard to solve in part due to shame and all kinds of social reinforcement.

If you have a bad habit that won't get you stigmatized, ostracized and arrested, friends and family can be excellent sources of support for helping you break the habit. But when you can't TELL ANYONE...don't be surprised when a bad habit is exponentially harder to break when deprived of amiable social support.

[Karunamon]

And I believe a huge factor is the fact that marijuana is illegal, so you cross an important legal threshold

I've always thought the "gateway drug" nonsense was, in part, due to the realization someone has that they've been blatantly, bald-fadedly lied to about drugs for most of their life. (DARE bangs on about cannabis like it was injecting heroin and PCP with dirty needles!)

And the next thought from there, naturally, is "Okay, now what else were they making up?

[lisivka]

Crossing streets on red light is illegal too. Enjoy it.

[hutzlibu]

I do. Because I can go faster wherever I want to go and laugh at the people who stan at an empty road...

[lisivka]

Yep. You are doing it because it is faster for you, not because it is illegal.

[eru]

Only in some countries.

[lips]

The article fails to put the timeline of meth-centric US laws into perspective. i.e. restrictions on meth ingredient purchasing, the move from large US production facilities to imports to small homebrew operations. This isn't a particular area of interest to me, but to discuss law/supply/demand issues of marijuana, and then to casually toss in increases in meth and heroin without the same analysis of contributing factors is not truly informative.

[rhizome]

Are you talking about consumers...or dealers? The gateway is supply-side, and decriminalizing and medicalizing drug abuse takes away all of their profit motive. Make pot legal, they'll move to other high profit drugs because that's what their suppliers will have. Legalization cuts off that entire miserable supply chain.

[andrewstuart]

My theory is that if you can't get a cheap, legal high then you are more susceptible to trying something else.

[eru]

Could you think of a way to test this?

(I imagine one can probably find lots of `natural experiments'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment)

[vidarh]

We test that every day: People get their oxycodone prescription etc. taken away.

Today this is one of the most substantial gateways to heroin use. A proportion of those who have their opoid prescriptions taken away turn to buying more on the black market. High black market prices for drugs like oxycodone lead people to try heroin.

[anon987]

Here's to hoping people realize and deal with the real gateway drug: Prescription opiates

[cnp]

Here's to hoping people realize and deal with the real gateway drug: Alcohol, that great destroyer of worlds, marriages, cultures, physical health and particularly the brain, time (hangovers, boredom), coping strategies (emotional pain), real pain (coping strategies), poor decision making (you know it), and so on. Start here, and come into it with a few entrenched problems, and sure enough you'll find yourself elsewhere should time and circumstance align.

To all the magical, healing drugs that are currenly illegal: may you one day be free. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_caus...

[jacobolus]

Alcohol, in small doses (0.5–2 drinks) is a pretty good anxiolytic.

[rl3]

This. Problem is some people sober up fast after that little, so a continual low-level intake can be required.

That said, I've found I'm more productive with whiskey than without lately.

[vectorjohn]

Gotta hit that Ballmer peak[0]!

[0] https://xkcd.com/323/

[eru]

That's a dangerous slope you are sliding down there..

[rl3]

To qualify the previous statement, I've been using low amounts of alcohol to break anxiety related to lack of productivity. It helps with actually getting things done, as opposed to being stuck in a nervous loop overthinking things.

Once I've built momentum again I just cut out the alcohol entirely. It's kind of like a bootstrapping process, or perhaps boozestrapping..

I can't recommend anyone actually does this though, especially if you're prone to problems with alcohol. Personally, I've far more to fear from RTS games as far as addictions are concerned.

[tamana]

What would happen to those rankings of meth and heroin were sold at every grocery store?

Alcohol takes a lot of blame because it is the most accessible and cheapest drug.

[MichaelGG]

Methamphetamine is sold at grocery stores (Safeway, Target, several others), at least according to a quick search:

http://www.goodrx.com/desoxyn?drug-name=desoxyn

[alexbecker]

This is misleading; it's sold at grocery store pharmacies, but only with a prescription. As a Schedule II drug the controls are much tighter than normal drugs, including strict regulations on who can prescribe such drugs and secondary verification for new prescriptions. In NY (and soon more states), they can only be prescribed electronically using approved security measures.

[oldsj]

Wow its not even masked under a different name, just straight methamphetamine for sale

[nostromo]

Alcohol has costs, but it also has benefits.

Looking at only one side of the equation doesn't make for fair analysis.

[golergka]

> Here's to hoping people realize and deal with the real gateway drug

I think they already tried a certain approach, about hundred years ago

[cnp]

Point isn't to ban it, just to be honest about what we're dealing with so as to better understand the dangers and / or benefits of other drugs and approaches.

[winter_blue]

Opioids are actually much less harmful than other stuff, even alcohol. Alcohol is a neurotoxin, i.e. it literally kills brain cells. On the other hand, everyone's bodies produces opioids naturally. Endorphins are opioids, and the rush you get when you work out at a gym, is you getting mildly high on the natural opioid, endorphin (whose name is short for "endogenous morphine").

Synthetic and natural opioids have the same mode of operation on your brain as endorphins. They bind to these things called "opioid receptors"[1] in your brain. There is a biological purpose for the existence of these receptors. Quoted from Wikipedia: "The endogenous opioid system is thought to be important in mediating complex social behaviors involved in the formation of stable, emotionally committed relationships."

Opiates actually seem to have a significant benefit to people suffering from severe and refractory major depression, where all other legal anti-depression medication has not helped them.[2] Now compare this with alcohol (ethanol) -- a substance that recklessly goes around destroying cells in your brain and your liver, which people take just to get rid of some social anxiety. Huh.

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

[2] http://www.opioids.com/antidepressant/opiate.html

[tamana]

Why so you insinuate that stuff your body produces is good to consume? That's a naturalistic fallacy.

[smsm42]

> everyone's bodies produces opioids naturally

That's one of the dangers of opioids - once external opioids get into the system, it adjusts for them and if they are withdrawn, everything breaks down. Of course, if you are seriously ill, then your other choice - e.g. suffering severe debilitating pain or depression - is worse, so you choose lesser of evils. But that doesn't make opioids something nice and safe.

With alcohol, for most people usage in typical recreational doses is completely safe. I've been using alcohol recreationally for decades without any problems, and so did many people I know. I suspect doing the same with opioids would end very badly (and I'm not inclined to test that hypothesis and don't recommend to anyone).

[krashidov]

Alcohol does not kill brain cells. This is a common myth.

[DigitalJack]

Well, I sort of agree. I work with several fibromyalgia groups, and it's a simple fact that pain management in america is abysmal. The regulation of prescription opiates so onerus, it makes it extremely difficult for patients to get, and doctors to prescribe, the medication that would have a massive difference in their quality of life.

It is because of this that they find alternatives/substitutes, which range from alcohol to heroin to suicide. Two people I know have killed themselves because they could not deal with the pain and the medical system failed them.

[wycx]

I find the attitude of doctors to chronic pain for which they cannot provide a solution to be very frustrating.

Why is it that opiate addiction is seen as far far worse than debilitating chronic pain? Why can't the patient make that choice?

[DanBC]

For most people with long term pain an opiate prescription is the wrong choice.

The patient ends up with an addiction of opiates; while taking dangerously large quantities of opiates; while still being in pain.

They've still got the pain; they now have two additional problems.

Most people with long term pain need access to pain management services which include other stuff (exercise, physiotherapy, weight loss, psychological therapies) as well as (if needed) opiates.

[DigitalJack]

None of those are alternatives that make sense with fibromyalgia. I could see them for lower back pain.

The thing with fibro is that pain causes reactions that make fibro worse, such as sleep deprivation.

Opiates can break this cycle through a short term course.

[wycx]

Except that the primary focus of pain management services seems to be overwhelmingly about reducing opiate intake, rather than helping the patient deal with pain.

Maybe there are no good choices for some long term pain.

[DanBC]

I don't know where you are, but in England most pain control clinics are mostly about helping the patient deal with pain, and using appropriate medication to do so.

Here's the English guidance for managing pain in non-specialist settings, so this is what people should be getting from a regular doctor. (For neuropathic pain).

http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg173/chapter/1-recommendati...

[thatswrong0]

They're not just gateway drugs, but also a huge problem in and of themselves. I have a friend who went to rehab for heroin and he said most of the people there were addicted to oxycodone, not heroin. Opiates are not to be trifled with, yet some doctors are more than willing to throw them at people. My other friend was prescribed Norco for a sore throat >:(

[stevesearer]

I recently burned my hands with bacon grease while cooking which was a painful experience and was prescribed Norco. The pain was pretty much gone in the morning ~12 hours later and I had only taken one dose (which made me feel terrible, btw) and didn't take any more. I imagine many people just take the dosage until the prescription is gone.

[jonknee]

> I imagine many people just take the dosage until the prescription is gone.

Or more than the dose and then buy it on the street after they run out. After that gets too expensive they figure out heroin is the same rush.

[speeder]

I've heard that Heroin was invented in first place to be a "phasing out" drug of sorts, to fix Morphine addiction...

[malka]

It was. Then suboxone, methadone, etc. I can't wait to see the latest fad.

[girvo]

Suboxone helped me kick a 6 year heroin addiction. For an actual addict, there is effectively no high from it (aside from the relief of getting rid of withdrawal symptoms, which is very different from an actual high). So, you can dismiss it as much as you like, but it (coupled with excellent support from the government-run clinic) saved my life.

[jessaustin]

Here's to hoping people realize that the whole concept of "gateway drug" is horseshit. Human beings exhibit a wide range of behaviors following the use of any substance, that usually have much more to do with the humans and with their environment than with the substance.

[ssmoot]

These days it's hard to get a handful of Vicodin to get you through a few days of pain after hurting your back.

It's being "dealt with" for sure. I'm not sure the amount of inconvenience and needless suffering imposed is an improvement on anything. I've never abused drugs. Opiates after back pain, minor surgery or a root canal aren't a "gateway" to anything for the vast vast majority of people.

I don't know about recreational heroin, cocaine or meth. I'm going to err on the side of caution and suggest that they're probably something I don't want to see legalized.

OTOH it'd be nice if marijuana advocates would stop treating alcohol as if it's the worst substance known to man. Current DWI laws are not justified with science. Legalizing marijuana and criminalizing responsible consumption of alcohol is not progress. If everyone you know would probably be in jail were it not for the fact they haven't been caught, it's probably not a good law.

Sane pain management should be between you and your Dr. Ethical patient treatment should not be disincentivized because someone has a political agenda.

[emiliobumachar]

"I'm going to err on the side of caution and suggest that they're probably something I don't want to see legalized."

Beware of status quo bias. Why do you think restrictions are the cautious choice, as opposed to the daring choice?