[aurareturn]

There are a few issues with what you're saying.

1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.

2. It's much harder to realize that you're addicted to weed - unlike alcohol. Alcohol addiction is obvious to people around you as well. Not weed. Many weed addicts do not have the self awareness.

3. Weed can be significantly cheaper than alcohol per session - thus consuming more is economical for many. A few drinks at a bar could cost you $100 vs eat a weed gummy for $2 and then go out.

4. Weed addiction takes place over a long period of time. It could take years before you realize the negative effects. It's obvious for alcohol immediately.

[walthamstow]

> 1. Weed has a mostly benign image right now. It has good PR.

Maybe this is a US/Canada thing, but it is deeply untrue in the UK. Cannabis has a terrible image here, as opposed to alcohol. Someone who drinks a bottle of wine a night would not be frowned upon.

I never tell people at work that I consume cannabis, not even people I am friends with, as it leads to all kinds of assumptions and prejudices.

[danenania]

None of those are issues with what I'm saying.

Many millions of people are able to use cannabis moderately and responsibly. If for whatever reason you can't, that's up to you to deal with--there are many resources available that can help. Taking it away from everyone because you have a problem is not a reasonable solution.

[aurareturn]

If you legalize cocaine and meth, some people will use it responsibly too. ;)

[danenania]

I'm against drug prohibition in general. I think it has been an abject failure. Strong regulation makes sense for the most dangerous drugs (cannabis certainly isn't one of them), but I don't think any drug should be illegal. I don't believe it's the government's job to save you from yourself.

Making a habit of driving 100mph on a motorcycle will probably kill you about as quickly on average as either of those drugs, and is more dangerous to other people to boot. Should motorcycles therefore also be illegal? If not, why not? If the goal is to stop people from hurting themselves, why are you only focused on one particular way that people can hurt themselves?

[aurareturn]

We have laws preventing 100mpg speeds on any vehicle. We also have laws that govern how a motorcycle should be driven.

The government can't ban everything that has a risk of death. You could die if a tree falls on you randomly. The government isn't going to ban trees. It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US.

Are you a software developer or work in tech? There are millions of things you can do to improve your product but you always prioritize the most important ones first, right? Best bang for the buck. And you'll likely never reach the improvements at the bottom of the list.

[danenania]

A law against 100mph speeds on a vehicle is not a corollary to drug prohibition--it's banning the use of vehicles completely.

"It has to do with the magnitude of the problem to society. Motorcyclists getting killed, although a problem, is not that high of a problem to society in the US."

Considering that cannabis kills exactly no one, you seem to be arguing against your own point here.

[aurareturn]

>A law preventing 100mph speeds on a vehicle is not a corollary to drug prohibition--it's banning the use of vehicles completely.

See my tree falling example.

>Considering that cannabis kills exactly no one, you seem to be arguing against your own point here.

Nope. You're using deaths as the measuring stick. I'm using impact to society.

[tchaffee]

Alcohol addiction is not immediately obvious for many people.

[aurareturn]

Relative to weed, it’s a lot faster.

[tchaffee]

In my experience, that's not correct.

Can you please share your sources? I'm always happy to be persuaded by studies.