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.
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...
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.