Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I agree, although I think putting harsh limits will just continue to drive addicts and users with high tolerances to a black market. We don't place limits on alcohol, I'm not sure why we should on these things either. If there are legal, regulated places to buy them the "black market" would be mostly crushed anyway, just like the black market for alcohol is today.


It's true we don't limit alcohol consumption, unless one is at a bar, where a bartender legally must cut you off in some instances, and has discretion otherwise.

I think we should place limits specifically designed to prevent tolerance buildup or the ability to repeat said habit-forming behavior on a habit-forming schedule, basically. Like, I can do coke 1x a year and have a good time but not be addicted, especially if I can't get it again for a year. If one could just go back the Drugs'R'Us and pick up another g, well... we're even worse off than square 1.


That does nothing to stop the black market though. I would actually argue allowing people to legally get one fix of a addictive substance and then not allowing them a second would be a great boon to the black market. The concept doesn't really make sense. And then you also give law enforcement the headache of determining what is illegal coke and what is legal coke. What if I bought a bag 6 months ago,never consume it, then police find me with it.How can they possibly know if I used it six months ago and refilled the container on the street or not.


The environmentally-conscious side of me hates this: Single use, tax stamped containers that, once opened, cannot be resealed or reused. Theoretically, ne wouldn't have any trouble because possession is legal/decriminalized. If any drugs are found in a search by police that aren't in the state-approved containers, they are confiscated and destroyed, but the possessor is obviously not charged with anything. Problem solved, mostly.

I also don't care about any difficulties the purveyors of state-backed violence (police) may encounter as a result of this. They can spend their budgets that way instead of purchasing weapons of war. Win win win.


OK, so the plan is to make owning drugs legal, and sell drugs once to users, then tell them they can't have any more, and that is supposed to accomplish what, exactly? I'm not even against legalizing drugs, I'm just against legalizing them occasionally arbitrarily, that seems to be the worst of both worlds. Now we have legalized crackheads and opium addicts, with a legal method of getting addicted (but once you are addicted and desperately want more the govt cuts you off) and a crime fueled black market coexisting


You are creating poor strawmen and you are not even attempting to interpret arguments charitably. Good day.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: