While scanning the comments, I observe one recurring argument against the step of legalizing weed: (excessive) use can and will have catastrophic psychological consequences on some of the consumers.
I totally agree. It is, however a flawed argument in the context of legalization. One of the arguments for the legalization by the health ministry is that prohibition has been ineffective, factually not avoiding or even reducing (excess) weed consumption (among minors). Prohibition has criminalized many people for their consumption (via necessary circumstances such as possession), at the same time often denying help to those consumers who needed it.
The goals of drug policy should be:
- help consumers to avoid or treat harmful consumption, especially minors
- do not criminalize adult citizens who do no harm to others
Neither of these goals have been achieved by prohibition. Legalization is not going to help on the first point either, but might make it easier.
In the context of the second point: prohibition has been a nasty vehicle for arbitrary, often racist policing. Given that prohibition is not realistically possible in full consequence, the inherent tools of criminalizing alleged drug users are often applied to specific groups only, often for racist motives. Throwing around cocaine at the company party of your startup will hardly be punished, whereas the immigrant neighbor ends up in jail for smoking a joint.
There's a middle ground between legalization and prohibition - consumption is legal / decriminalized, while sale is illegal. Some European countries follow this model for weed and other drugs.
It's a middle ground similar to the handling of pornography (often legal) and prostitution (often illegal) and it doesn't make much sense. Usually production, trafficking, and sale are also considered illegal, because to only make illegal the latter would make it more much difficult to prosecute those involved in sales and distribution. Some users need more than others, and some users produce their own supplies. Neither should be illegal, but both often are.
Either it's okay for adults to consent to activities that don't harm others or its not. People should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, and the legal system should have to ability to disincentivize antisocial behavior in ways that are productive i.e. that actually reduce it.
The antisocial behavior is not people selling/smoking a joint or having/selling consensual sex -- and while it might be associated with them, the government should be tackling those other, actual problems instead.
> People should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, and the legal system should have to ability to disincentivize antisocial behavior in ways that are productive i.e. that actually reduce it.
And this middle ground does that. You still can smoke weed if you want to and obtain it. But the government does not have any responsibility to facilitate you getting it.
Making the production, trafficking and sale illegal disincentivizes consumption without actually prosecuting the consumer.
Based on your argument, the reason for legalization of weed is that the current police system has totally failed and decided the only way forward is to give up policing it? That would make this move seem more of a failure than a victory…
Prohibition works. It works very well. It's just that you can't have half-working prohibition, which is what a lot of Western countries want to subscribe to when it comes to drugs that really leave a stain on society.
Alcohol prohibition worked perfectly in the US, except that hard liquor usage skyrocketed for some reason, but I bet that had nothing to do with the prohibition itself.
My main issue since legalization is I find the smell disgusting.
It also imbues and latches itself onto to whatever is around you. Now legalization has people smoking it in my apartment complex or at restaurants and the smell just lingers around my house or on your clothes when your near it.
And then Every weed smoker I brought this up to told me tough luck.
At least cigarette smell is agreed to be distasteful around others.
Smokers have gotten better at making sure they don’t smoke right in front of your face. The amount of assholes I’ve seen light up weed in front of you though and then tell you to piss of when politely asking them to smoke somewhere else trumps the cigarette smokers by far
Disagree that cigarettes only smell when being lit. The "stale tobacco" and "ashtray" smell sticks to your clothes, your vehicle, your house, basically anywhere where it's consumed. Anyone who smoked and later quit can attest to that, mostly because you go through this period of "Oh my, did I actually smell like that"?
Of course, smoked cannabis is the same. Whatever the smoke touches will leave some sort of residue and it can smell. In my opinion the "stale cannabis" smell is more pleasant than the "stale tobacco" smell, but different people are sensitive to different things.
I think they mean that a bag of tobacco doesn’t make the room smell like an ashtray, but a bag of weed is excessively pungent even when wrapped and stashed.
I am sorry they were rude to you. I had an experience in Phoenix Arizona recently. I was traveling for work from an illegal state, and we were having a work event, it was nighttime, and the smell started coming in from the street pretty strong, after a few minutes a hotel employee came over and closed the window and the smell went away. Seems like the more reasonable reaction instead of calling the police or trying to get the people arrested, on the other hand it was rude to light up on the sidewalk just outside of an open window/doors. If people were reasonable about their consumption and courteous of others in regard to the smell, there wouldn't be an issue. It's too bad we just can't make it illegal to be a rear end.
I support people being able to consume them but don't see much difference in the person who walks out in public reeking of cannabis than the person who is reeking of alcohol. When you walk around in public smelling of an intoxicant in places where it's not generally consumed in public don't be surprised when/if people look at you sideways.
> My main issue since legalization is I find the smell disgusting.
Tough luck.
I also dislike coffee breath, cigarette smoke, the smell of energy drinks, cinnamon chewing gum, perfumes, beer, dog shit, fertilizers, some garden flowers, car exhausts, ...
But on the bright side, there will be more variety in weed strains. They do smell differently. Some really are nasty, some are very pleasant. I absolutely love the smell of hashish, but I guess that's still gonna be rare.
Imo, it's very much dependent on the intensity. I don't smoke it myself and consider a slight whiff of it quite pleasant, but I wouldn't tolerate someone smoking in my living quarters.
How are these things not comparable? It's all smells which linger and affect people around, but have to be tolerated as personal freedom of the offender.
I guess, apart from indoor smoking without proper ventilation (illegal in Germany), car exhausts are the only other thing which should be illegal, because of the huge burden on public health and the objective impact on another's life. If I have to tolerate even car exhausts, you have to tolerate all the weed stink. I would gladly sacrifice weed for a car ban.
I don't smoke. But you need friends with better dope, or stop hot boxing.
Coffee breath? Cinnamon gum? MAYBE you'll notice those things a foot away from someone in a one to one conversation. I can tell someone is smoking a joint across the street. I can tell the person in the unit below me is smoking weed. I can't tell you if they had coffee, cinnamon gum or are wearing perfume. The strength isn't remotely comparable. Car exhaust, while not great doesn't have even close to the bad smell weed smoke has.
And I live in country with already legal and easily accessible weed with a wide variety of strains. I don't think I'm just smelling skunk weed.
> I can tell the person in the unit below me is smoking weed.
I can tell when my neighbour has potato or prawns for dinner. And anyone in this apartment building can smell the burnt garlic. I like garlic smell but not burnt garlic smell.
It is "tough luck" as you frame it since collective good takes precedence :). I do disagree about the smell lingering, the marijuana smell doesn't stay around for a long, overnight or so, while tobacco smoke does imbibe itself to clothes and requires a wash and I don't see people saying one cannot smoke cigarettes, especially in Germany or any EU countries.
In any case nobody cares what you think, about MJ, sorry but not sorry. If this were true we wouldn't have highly deadly/poisonous substances such as alcohol around.
To be fair, while cigs are stinkier and last longer, marijuana is WAY more potent. E.g. a joint will make an entire neighborhood smell like wee d for hours whereas a cig makes like a 20 ft radius smell like cigs for 20 mins and the smoker and any nearby clothing smells like it until its washed.
That and capitalism, airplanes, industrial messes cause cancer and more, cars, alcohol, guns, war, famine, poverty, all maim kill, ruin lives and we keep all these things we invented through history.
But ooo man the moral panic over plants nature provides
It all just screams fake moral outrage to keep people buying man-made vices
I believe that overall the decision is a good one, there are no real good reasons why cannabis should be prohibited.
At the same time, I strongly hope that the cannabis smokers will be considerate of the people around them. It is quite a foul smell if you are not partaking yourself.
It’s been legal since 2018, up here in Canada, and other than extreme amount of cannabis shops in every other block, it’s basically been the same as pre-legalization. People who were into it, still into it. People who didn’t still don’t. Maybe just the people who were curious but didn’t want to try it because it was illegal tried it out and joined either of the camps.
I’m not the biggest fan, but as a person who enjoys drinking from time to time, who am I to rob people from their good times when I get to do it freely?
Thanks for the report, so basically it removed the legal burden on people and police, no need to hide or buy at secret deals, and no need to arrest them all the time for smoking, is it right ?
Are there regulation on the production of cannabis on sale ? concentration and limits in amount of impurities etc ?
> Are there regulation on the production of cannabis on sale ? concentration and limits in amount of impurities etc ?
Yes, it is regulated. However, growers get to choose which labs they send their samples to. With those incentives, you can guess what happens next.
Other than that, I agree with the GP: nothing has really changed; those who smoked continue to do so, often relying on the cheaper black market; those who didn't like it continue to not partake.
I vape once every few months and it is nice to have access to legal weed with transparent pricing.
Yeah regulated in terms of amount you can grow, sell, how much you can sell at a time, how much you can have in edibles, inside one package and etc. It was very weird in the beginning since the production didn't catch up with the demand, so was very expensive and sounded like quality was sub-par, making the regulars to rely on black market. Now, well, I guess you can still go with black market, but everyone I know that has been dabbling with it for the past 20+ years have switched to legal cannabis.
Keep in mind, nobody would have ever arrested you for smoking cannabis for ages especially in the west coast Canada. Sure it was illegal, but everyone has a friend who has been smoking for years.
What is meant with "legal cannabis"? That the last step somehow is a licensed dealer selling? Or is is guaranteed the whole chain from farmer to point of sales is legal?
What about "new" people? I, personally, don't care if new people try it. It doesn't seem to have extreme societal impact like very hard drugs (fentanyl and etc.) we see in Vancouver. I'm still against those, but for lighter things like cannabis, I'll treat it as alcohol - let others freely enjoy it as long as they're not causing problems for their surroundings. As long as people understand their limits and deal with their addictions, it's not my place to limit people on their consumption behaviours.
And well, I was a kid once as well, and trying alcohol for the first time, drinking with friends, getting into shenanigans. Wouldn't trade those memories for anything. That'll happen whether you want it or not.
Still against smoking in small public places though, as my jacket gets to smell like weed.
This is all I ask. I've never had an interest in weed, but I also don't think it should be illegal. After it was legalized in my state, I started second guessing my stance out of spite. I quickly got tired of not being able to do a chore like grocery shopping without having the store stink of weed because someone couldn't open a window while they baked in their car, or whatever. The commercial culture that sprung up is also annoying, with the amount of dispensary billboards rivaled only by billboards for personal injury lawyers. It's be one thing if it died down after the first year, but that the in-your-faceness of it persists is starting to feel more like an indoctrination. At least in my state, the cannabis community has revealed itself to be the annoying children they were stereotyped as, and that is just disappointing since I voted to legalize it.
What can we expect we billions are poured as investments? And worse and more dangerous than the commercial culture for me is the resulting aggressive push against any health questions, again I imagine due to huge financial interests. Unfortunately as always recently the debate has been binarized in pro or against camps. Plenty of things are legal and bad for you, that should be another debate.
Why is this comment downvoted? It is a fact that big tobacco bankrolls the cannabis industry and that is where the aforementioned money comes from. The genetics are all bought up, the land is all bought up, the industry is consolidating and it's impossible for mom and pop to sell cannabis. Every recreational market, including Canada, is a disaster.
Wow, you should re-read what you wrote and then replace "weed" with something else people partake in, like alcohol or gambling and then see if anyone agrees with you. If we catered to minorities like you there wouldn't be any food around that didn't have the "correct" smell an people would only eat "approved" food. In any case I'm glad we have some sort of democracy that doesn't cater to people like you.
Depends on if they smoke pot and hashish, to me. If you ever pour out a Carlsberg, their hops smell extremely like fresh, nice pot. Most non-smokers (canna or otherwise) seem to like it, or at least tolerate it. Hashish does have a much more pungent smell, and can be uncomfortable at times -- even to me, a smoker for 25 years now.
Personal preference does come into it. I rather like the smell of certain kinds of smoke, but cannabis has this very strange sweetness which I find unpleasant. Smells certainly don't correlate with safety though; I like the scent of white spirit!
When outdoors, wind comes into it. They really ought to have two smoking areas on each railway platform, one on either end, and make it compulsory for smokers to use whichever one would carry the smoke away from other users on a given day. Or, have a smoking shelter with a tall chimney to take it away more effectively vertically.
Tobacco is actually more addictive than weed. I have a friend in Berlin who substituted tobacco for some herbal mix some years ago. He was a heavy smoker until then. Basically he just kept on smoking but swapped out the tobacco. A few weeks in he realized he didn't need to any more. It, smells a bit unpleasant but it got him completely off the tobacco with essentially zero effort. He rolls like one or two a day max. Usually with some weed and a beer on the side.
I don't smoke myself (tobacco or weed) but I know plenty of people who do, or who used to (multiple packs a day, like my friend above). Quitting is hard apparently. So, from that to one or two per day sounds like it should be an improvement.
The nastiest thing with weed is having to deal with drug dealers to get it. Bringing it out of the criminal corner is a good thing. There are a lot of drug dealers who also sell far nastier stuff than weed. Crack cocaine apparently is a growing problem in Berlin.
> there are no real good reasons why cannabis should be prohibited.
Is there any good reason why alcohol should be prohibited?
Regulating the quality of the cannabis on the market is a large win for public health among users of cannabis. In a black market, you can't be really sure what you're buying and people are incentivized to buy a stronger product even if they don't actually need the stronger variant.
About time. Weed and hash being illegal has put a large portion of my generation (German Gen Xer here) on the wrong side of the law and gave us an unnecessary deep distrust in law enforcement of any kind.
That is a very good point. The damages done to society by criminalizing something a lot of people consider a part of their life. Especially, as the harm is only on oneself.
Talking to cops is not so dangerous in all countries. Many countries have cops that act reasonably. Are you from the US? I hear it can be dangerous to talk to cops there.
nope, which i can say with confidence as someone who was physically attacked and mugged. alternative is to move on with my life and realize the incredibly small chance that the cops respond, decide to do anything, and are actually successful at catching the person, and im successful in suing for damages,they're even capable of paying my damages, and all of this is worth my time and effort. additionally i don't believe in causing harms to others, even if they've harmed me, and the non-zero chance that the cops just fucking shoot and murder the dude over stealing my wallet means i'm not going to call the cops.
Consumption of all drugs is legal in Germany. The problem is buying/selling/production, as well as simple possession. I think this is the case in most countries.
> This tiny detail makes the difference why employer-mandated drug tests are not a thing in Germany like it is in the US.
It doesn't explain the difference, no, since the same is true about the US. In most states, consumption of most drugs is not a crime - possession, production, distribution, sale, and trafficking are the actual crimes prosecuted.
Nearly any amount of intoxication is vaguely illegal under disorderly conduct. It’s a catch all they can apply whenever. Fighting it and winning still costs time and money.
So sure, the act of consuming might be legal, but having consumed isn’t.
As I understand it, the issue is only about showing up to work with any level of drugs in your system, even if there aren't any actual signs of you being intoxicated.
> Nearly any amount of intoxication is vaguely illegal under disorderly conduct. It’s a catch all they can apply whenever. Fighting it and winning still costs time and money.
This is a weak argument. Almost nobody is getting prosecuted for "disorderly conduct" when under the influence of marijuana as a proxy for marijuana consumption. And even if they were, the connection between that and employer drug tests is extremely tenuous.
Unless you drive a car or own a gun in the US, then if you do get a bad drug test result you can easily get charged with a crime. It is not likely to get drug tested in relation to having a gun, but anywhere pushing DUI enforcement is going to be drug testing significant samples of random people and charging people who may have smoked long ago and had all side effects completely subsided but still charged with a DUI offense. You can get active THC in a blood sample up to 3 days after smoking despite the effects lasting hours at best and levels not increasing or decreasing linearly with consumption. And of course metabolites for cannabis can go back up to an entire month.
> Unless you drive a car or own a gun in the US, then if you do get a bad drug test result you can easily get charged with a crime.
The likelihood of getting charged with a drug-related crime for testing positive for drugs on an employer-mandated drug test, which is the context being discussed, is absolutely minuscule.
You may get fired, but your employer isn't going to refer you to local prosecution, and the prosecution wouldn't take it if they did.
AFAIK this is allowed during the approval process for very specific roles, but not just randomly in day-to-day work after admission.
And for good reason. That would be an entirely unproportional encroachment on privacy and personal rights, irrespective of whether the test turns out positive or negative.
I never heard of anyone around me required to do a drug test for work. May be different for people carrying guns, like police and hunters, but that's because of gun license requirements.
A drug test may be legal, or suggested, when there is reasonable suspicion someone was high during work hours. Maybe air traffic controllers and similar professions need to be evidently clean. Otherwise I don't think drug tests are legal in Germany. Even asking about consumption is illegal in most cases.
> Maybe air traffic controllers and similar professions need to be evidently clean.
kinda obscure example. i expect most operators of heavy machinery, human transportation devices and some security professions to require some verification of abstinence. i was tested once in order to get the required permit to drive a van with elderly and disabled ppl for the red cross.
> This tiny detail makes the difference why employer-mandated drug tests are not a thing in Germany like it is in the US.
Not really. The business of employer-mandated drug testing in the EU is generally tricky, and employees enjoy wide ranging protections. Most countries only allow drug testing where there is a certain aspect of risk, and in most of those case, only a physician can perform the test, and cannot share findings, only declare the subject as fit for duties or not.
In Germany, specifically, a pre-employment test but a physician is allowed, and when employed only rarely and for very specific circumstances.
You're probably right that it's the case in most countries, but an interesting counterexample is Sweden, where testing positive on a drug test is a criminal offence. Police can arrest you for appearing to be under the influence of drugs, and if they find any traces in a urine test, they'll fine you for it.
I hope that legalization in Germany will lead to more sane laws in Sweden, but honestly, I'm not holding my breath for it
I saw a man get hassled by Swedish police on a train just after crossing the Øresund Bridge. "The dog is very interested in your bag", they said. The man admitted that maybe he had smoked marijuana in Copenhagen and they left him alone.
I'm sure selective enforcement is at play, but at least in my experience they didn't care.
Prosecution in Sweden for an act committed in another country is generally only possible if it is punishable in both jurisdictions. Internationally it's a relatively common rule in criminal law. Courts have smacked the cops and prosecutors over this so they don't waste time on such cases anymore.
That is not the norm. You won't get charged for smoking in Copenhagen, but it will put you in a high risk category for smuggling so their typical response here is to search you. They were probably under a high workload and had to prioritize heavily.
I have been searched twice crossing Øresundsbroen into Sweden, and both times I was the only one in the carriage to be searched. I have never seen them search anyone else.
They will always be under time pressure as the train needs to depart promptly.
(This is Swedish customs, nothing to do with identity checks. I don't use cannabis or socialise with people that do.)
Is there any jurisdiction where selective enforcement is not how drug laws are enforced? I'm guessing maybe somewhere like Japan, but I'm sure the vast majority of states do not enforce drug laws very consistently.
Even more wild is Singapore's law that it is illegal for citizens and permanent residents to consume illegal substances, even if that consumption occurred in another country where it is legal.[1]
So you have Singaporeans testing positive for cannabis upon arrival at the airport after a trip to Thailand, who are not in possession of cannabis, have not consumed it in Singapore (or another country where it is illegal) and they are charged with a crime.
Sweden is (in)famous in Europe for taking probably the continent's hardest line on drugs. Cannabis is in the same category as heroin and treated accordingly, there's no tolerance for medical use etc.
It should be noted that a lot of things are still illegal and are being worked on. Two examples:
You are not allowed to share cannabis.
The amount of THC in your blood that would make it illegal to drive is 1 ng/mL blood serum. This is essentially nothing and can, anecdotally, be triggered by losing weight after consuming.
I've had the opportunity to see one of the infamous German drug tests in practice (wasn't driving). The result is that if you used any canabis 4 days earlier it will show up on the pee test. It was waved off as no issue, but four young Dutch people in car got their attention a bit too much apparently. If they thought we were the type they were looking for they had cause to do whatever. We were not the ones they were after though as we were not going to the nearby festival and were just driving by.
No, it makes sense with the philosophy of german law. It's not illegal to harm yourself. It is not illegal to flee from the police or from prison. But of course there are various crimes surrounding the allowed behaviour.
I watched other people smoke cannabis, and after producing some foul fumes, they were just passively lying on the floor with a stare of apathy. I decided to NEVER try this, and to this day I have no regrets; I enjoy being in full control of my senses (I also do not drink alcohol and do not smoke).
The only thing hallucinating in my place is neural language models that I do research on.
However, I do support the legalization of cannabis, as scientific evidence suggests that can reduce crime and reduce attractiveness of it as a kind of "forbidden fruit", and I think it'd be wrong to criminalize those people who were too curious for their own good. There also seem well-attested cases for medical use.
> and after producing some foul fumes, they were just passively lying on the floor with a stare of apathy
That's like deciding to never try beer after seeing some people getting blackout drunk. Of course, it's your choice and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but still a weird argument to make. A lot of things when taken to the extreme can lead to very negative outcomes, not exactly a good reason to penalize (I know you're not suggesting that) or judge the people capable of moderation.
It's naive, not weird, which is to be expected by someone who never smoked.
I think, the observation isn't even far off in many situations, especially with youth (who smoke and drink for peer pressure, too). Because of illegalization, there was a substantial incentive to breed extremely potent cannabis genetics, grown in tightly controlled and optimized indoor operations. Or even worse: Weed cut with synthetic cannabinoids. Because you get more bang for your bug, and in particular more bang for trafficked mass (same reason fentanyl is everywhere). There is nothing chill about your typical street dope. For a first time user, chances are they will have a bad time. Too many people do one or two puffs and find themselves already way too "high". As of now, smoking is really only enjoyable, if you have some tolerance, in my opinion.
This will change now. We will see a huge variety of weed strains in people's hands. Not only because, obviously, people will exchange home grown produce (although still illegal), but also because medical cannabis access got a lot easier too now. Meaning you get clean, controlled, defined cannabis in pharmacies, if you find a doctor to $ign the prescription. There will be less pure flower, more leafy mixes, which I believe was common in the past. E.g. a high CBD, moderate/low THC breed will offer a much more enjoyable "on-boarding" experience, but it was nearly impossible to find on the illegal street market.
The culture around weed will change. It will get less intense, but more casual, more chill, more fun. OP will see more people smoking cannabis the same way people enjoy a glass of wine.
> That's like deciding to never try beer after seeing some people getting blackout drunk.
Out of all reasons to never try beer, this actually seems like a pretty good one? If my #1 reason would be seeing a drunk driver crash, then this would be a solid #2.
I'm not one to go moralize other people's use of substances, but it's also weird for me to read your take on it. Those are very common and good reasons for people not to try substances.
I might sound quite judgmental (and maybe a bit awful) but I can't think of another way to phrase it: but unless you have a history of substance abuse that only makes sense if you have a very strong fear of not being able to control yourself if you try that substance and become instantly addicted to it (which isn't at all rational).
Most people are perfectly capable of consuming alcohol/weed in moderation without doing any major harm to people surrounding them or themselves.
I've watched a fair number of weed smoker's lives (~10) and they fall into two distinct categories.
One set smoke weed and then partake in creative, explorative, or otherwise effort filled pursuits. Generally I feel that weed has likely improved their lives.
The other set smoke weed and consume... consume tv, consume video games, consume food, consume music. These people seem to fall into a slump that weed seems to participate in keeping them in. Weed lowers the bar to enjoy yourself and thus raises the bar for other activities. If weed and video games feels good, then why call up friends and go bowling? It's not addictive, but it does have a kind of gravity because it's an activity that participates in the economy of potential activities. For these people weed entertains them, at the cost of them becoming a more boring person.
This is pretty accurate to my experience. Weed makes many relaxing activities more enjoyable. On nights when I had nothing planned and wanted a chill night at home, weed would make that more enjoyable. But then it became easy to justify smoking every night that I didn't have anything going... which is most nights. So, soon I was smoking basically every night.
That said, I feel like I drifted between the two categories you describe. Sometimes I'd chill on the couch and do nothing but consume. Others I'd feel inspired to do something productive, like work on a side project, clean the house, go for a walk, or practice guitar.
I think we overstate how interesting people are in general. Maybe those people would've just been boring and consumed media in ways you don't seem to approve of sober otherwise?
I think you miss subtlety in the post you're reacting to.
Weed makes consumption more enjoyable, therefore you consume more than you'd consume without weed, at the opportunity cost of doing other things. Which in general makes you more boring.
I've been around stoner friends a lot (for most of them it was a phase in life which they got out of before ~30) - no matter how boring / interesting they were before / after weed, during their weed days they were more boring than during their non-weed years. Weed makes you content just sitting at home while otherwise you'd rather seek some excitement outside.
More so I just don't get why people need to please you or this guy with our interests? All sorts of peoples lives seem maybe not FUN to me because they don't have the same risk tolerance as me as an example but I don't think their lives are "boring". I think maybe they didn't spend as much time as me smoking PCP on traincars as a teenager!
People might have other experiences than you lol! Maybe someone finds watching sitcoms stoned while knitting to be the most rewarding thing in the world? Maybe they think the things you're doing are boring? It's odd to judge what people find exciting in life.
It feels like you are describing fentanyl.
You can do a lot of enjoyable things while high and you generally don't collapse to the ground when smoking weed.
Cannabis is a tool, if you misuse it, you can waste your entire life - but it's heaps better than sugar or alchol, especially if you avoid smoking it (which destroys your lungs). Edibles or vapes are much better.
If you use it well, it can be a good aid to relax and improve your quality of life - or maybe to endure a hard time in in your life.
If it wasn't a hassle to buy it, I'd definitely vape some instead of drinking beer to relax.
Maybe let's not get ahead of ourselves... sugar when consumed in moderation and with enough fiber/etc. is not really an issue. Also a lot depends on how you chose to consume cannabis if you're smoking it, it's no better than tobacco (besides that you're likely to do that way less frequently).
> Maybe let's not get ahead of ourselves... sugar when consumed in moderation and with enough fiber/etc. is not really an issue
Yes, but addictiveness is the issue. In my personal experience, light drugs have comparatively low addictiveness (compared to "drugs-non-drugs" like nicotine and alcohol), while sugar (/junk food) has a much higher one.
If I happen to consume more than usual, I find sugar (/junk food) really hard to cut, but not light drugs.
Keep in mind that a vast majority of Americans are overweight or obese. Under the addictiveness angle, one can say that the majority of the American population has an addiction, and it's to junk food, more than light drugs.
they could also be describing use of some of those synthetic 'weed' varieties that were floating around everywhere in the early 2000's which were just inert plant matter sprayed with some research chemical or another. Those had some pretty wild effects on folks.
I too have never tried cannabis, and I too support legalisation.
Not because of the effects it has on the consumer, but because the effects it has on the producer.
It depends on where you are, but where I am - the UK - the producers are primarily enslaved. A fact that is rarely talked about.
Recently there was a big drug bust. The headlines all described how many dogs were freed - less than twenty. But deep in the articles behind euphemistic language you could read that one and a half thousand enslaved people were also freed.
Producers following the laws can not compete with illegal producers on price. So even if you make consumption legal, the illegal networks will remain and become even bigger as the market expands.
This presumes the market isn't satisfied already. I doubt the market will expand much. It hasn't been hard at all to get weed, before. Whoever wanted to smoke, got theirs.
In Germany, you always had a lot of "deutsche Hecke" (cannabis grown in Germany) on the market. Lots of small operations. While still illegal, it isn't unethical and certainly doesn't involve slaves...
While more or less impossible to have legal (non-medical) weed right this moment, I very much doubt cannabis grown outside Germany will be attractive much longer. Because it's ethically questionable, because it's been in someone's butt, because it's often cut with dangerous substances, because you can't trust its quality and because you don't want to get involved with street pushers. Technically, you will have a "black-market", but it won't be the ultra criminal gangsters running the show. It's gonna be a friend-of-a-friend who's growing more than they are allowed to, selling off the extra.
There will be a questionable market for "doctors" writing prescriptions for medical weed now. A situation you find in many countries already. That's just the parasitic business you get with still restrictive legislation. Many people will go this route. Not because it's cheaper, but because getting weed this way is trusted, convenient and reliable. Medical weed costs about the same as high quality weed on the street before legalization. Prices will go down, margins will be smaller.
Weed can be classified as a depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogen (but never an opiate), according to the University of Maryland.
There's power-creep to consider. Modern weed isn't the weed of the 70s after all the cross-breeding. I've read about high schoolers acquiring cannibus-induced psychosis.
Cannabis can cause hallucinations! It can do so in at least two ways. One is a somewhat rare primary effect of the consumption, and the other is the triggering of a latent mental disorder.
Closed eye visuals/hallucinations is pretty vague because certain levels of closed eye visuals/hallucinations can be seen by completely sober people without even trying and most people would not consider them a hallucination in the common usage of the word. Ive certainly never heard of from others or experienced any unusual closed eye visuals from cannabis outside of seeing it as a tv trope or government anti-drug ad. I could see it being more noticeable or slightly more active than normal while on cannabis certainly but it still seems inaccurate or perhaps deceptive to tell somebody that if they smoke weed they might have hallucinations, at least not without a much more thorough explanation on what kind of hallucination they are talking about.
I agree, and I feel the same about the reverse too. Flat-out stating that cannabis doesn't cause hallucinations, or encouraging people to just try it because it they might find it fun (not OP, somewhere else in the thread) is deceptive, to say the least.
TV and anti-drug campaigns really do a bad job in explaining what really happens to someone on drugs. This is why I specifically linked Erowid.
From personal experience, it is hallucinogenic. I mean it's not like you're seeing things which don't exist, but both visual and auditory perceptions can get deformed, a bit like what LSD does. Combined that with making me significantly dumber and having literally 5-second memory span, I get very anxious / paranoid since I misinterpret things. (I consume weed very rarely as a result)
Good for you! That takes willpower. I'm also curious about your stance on less controversial drugs like coffee and sugar. (Sugar is surprisingly insidious!)
> I enjoy being in full control of my senses
Heh. I suspect you're a lot less in control than you think you are. It took me experiencing mushrooms and LSD to really open my eyes to the ridiculous amount of processing our minds do just outside of our awareness. I'm sure this could be explored without mind altering chemicals too, but few do.
I was mostly being provocative. Reality is that OP seems to be quite narrow minded and has made some enormous assumptions about people who smoke cannabis.
In very general terms, the world would be infinitely better off if people did not cast such wide nets on their assumptions.
I feel like we've all accidentally dabbled in self-harm enough to make up our minds on it. I've stubbed my toe and wacked my elbow on enough sharp objects to know it's not for me.
Wow you need to step out of your parents basement and experience more of the world rather than made up "models" you play with. I'm sure you don't eat different foods or don't try different spices because of reasons. In any case people like you shouldn't be allowed to judge others and impose any rules on anyone but themselves.
It's not about simply "allowing" judgment; it's about the credibility of those passing judgment. Experience, education, and critical thinking are the pillars upon which valid judgments stand.
Basing one's opinion heavily on one experience, viewed from the outside, is a demonstration of anchoring bias and egocentric bias respectively. Outside perspective cannot include what personal revelations or trauma processing is going on inside the head of the "apathetic" experiencer. It overlooks the diversity of experiences and potential reasons behind the observed behaviour, and is intellectually dishonest in avoiding the other cannabis consumption methods which points to a lack of depth in judgment.
Indeed, a person with a strongly held opinion based on an anecdote, wrought with textbook cognitive biases, is the kind of person who would deny themselves the opportunity to see their cognitive bases in action because of their snap judgment. Should we value judgments made by this kind of person? What kind of person should impose rules on others?
Difference being singular vs plural. If you told me: "you're ugly" or "you smell bad" I would have to evaluate myself, whereas judging a huge swath of people is not OK, my friend.
I think he's complaining that when you write things in support of the GOP's racist and bigoted policies, you get flagged, but he hasn't made the connection that it's the racism and bigotry and misogyny that gets you flagged, not the fact that it's the GOP that supports those policies. If he has a problem with the GOP's brand getting tarnished by their association with racism and bigotry, then he should take it up with the GOP themselves, not people who don't tolerate racism and bigotry and misogyny.
>"Stand where he tells you to stand": Why the GOP is doubling down on misogyny in 2024. Republicans placate an evangelical base that's getting nastier with sexism — even if costs the party women's votes.
>[...] It's not just the assault on abortion rights, which they can't seem to hold back from, despite the resounding unpopularity of the anti-choice stance. It's that the MAGA base is getting ever more vitriolic with its misogyny. Part of that is due to the more secular dirtbags of the Joe Rogan/Elon Musk variety, who have become such a loud part of the Republican coalition under Trump. But this escalation of boldly misogynist rhetoric is also coming from the evangelicals. Republicans can't win without keeping those people happy, since the Christian right is where the GOP's organizing power still mainly resides.
Oh I just can't wait for all the wunderbar cannabis strains to come out of Germany:
Zwischenrauchgenusserlebnisgrünblattsorte (Inter-smoke-enjoyment-green-leaf-variety): Das ist für die Zwischendurch Raucher. Machst du happy ohne zu viel Trubel. Gutes Grünblatt!
Wolkenkuckucksheimtraumwolkenpuff (Cloud-cuckoo-land-dream-cloud-puff):Dieses bringt dich hoch, hoch, bis zu den Wolken! Man träumt schön und fühlt sich wie im Märchenland.
Glückseligkeitsgefühlsauslöserkraut (Happiness-feeling-trigger-weed): Einmal puffen und du bist im Glückseligkeits-Himmel. Alles fühlt sich super an.
Gedankensprunghochflugblütezeit (Thought-leap-high-flight-blooming-time): Für die Kreativen Köpfe! Deine Gedanken machen Sprünge und fliegen hoch – Boom, Ideen überall!
Entspannungswunderwirkungsgewächs (Relaxation-miracle-effect-plant): Mega Entspannung garantiert. Nach einem Zug, alles ist chillig. Wie ein Wunder!
Lachanfallverursachendeswundergras (Giggle-fit-causing-wonder-grass): Vorsicht, Lachkrämpfe vorprogrammiert! Mit Freunden rauchen und der Spaß hört nicht auf.
Seelenruhigbalsamblattgenussmittel (Soul-calm-balm-leaf-enjoyment-substance): Deine Seele wird super ruhig. Stress? Welcher Stress? Alles easy.
Tiefenentspannungsnaturgenusserlebnis (Deep-relaxation-nature-enjoyment-experience): Bringt dich runter auf die Erde. Natur pur, tiefenentspannt und glücklich.
Kreativitätsschubgrünblattinspiration (Creativity-boost-green-leaf-inspiration): Künstler? Musiker? Hier kommt deine Inspiration! Kreativitätsschub im Anflug.
Wolkenreitertraumwiesengenusskraut (Cloud-rider-dream-meadow-enjoyment-weed): Fühl dich wie auf einer weichen Wiese, fliegend durch die Träume. Totaler Genuss!
Is there anything blocking the rest of EU from legalizing cannabis in this manner, aside from internal (national) politics? Whenever this topic comes up in our country, it's always met with opposition claiming that it would be against the EU regulations, or international treaties, or some other external blocker that we can't control.
These reasons sound like a stall tactic given that a few EU countries have managed legalization thus far, but I'm not familiar with the relevant laws. Do they have any legitimacy to them?
How about the horrible smell produced by those who smoke? It's super reckless to expose others to negative side-effects by somebody who can't control themselves and must smoke.
I think it's reasonable to impose restrictions on "smell pollution", as much as it's reasonable to limit neighbors from playing loud music at night.
The good news is that vaporization doesn't smell as much (or linger as long) while being nearly equivalent in effects, and edibles don't smell at all. I think users and non-users should be able to coexist peacefully by making a couple of compromises.
Do you find the smell of cigarettes less offensive? This is obviously a personal preference but personally I find that one much worse, and unlike with tobacco, I've never had to put my clothes in the laundry just because I stood next to a weed smoker for 5 minutes outdoors
> How about the horrible smoke produced by those who drive cars? It's super reckless to expose others to negative side-effects by somebody who can't control themselves and must drive alone on the highway back and forth to work.
Disturbing others with smells is already against the law. There have been cases of renters getting kicked out for bothering nighbors with tobacco smoke. Some amount of smell is just part of life. I also have so smell disgusting (to me) food sometimes.
There are also restrictions where you can and can't smoke, like schools, playgrounds or sports fields.
Tbf, the parent did specify smoking. However, to your point, legalisation will clearly make it more likely that alternative, less-smelly consumption methods become popular than prohibition.
Or the fact that a big portion of the population is not in favor of legalization. The new law in Germany is controversial, too, and chances are high that the next government (to be elected late 2025, which is most probably shifting towards the right) is going to change/revoke this law, as they have already announced.
Didn't Germany have a way, way more ambitious plan at the beginning, basically the Canadian model with fully legalized sales, dispensaries etc. only for it to get shot down by the EU? So they backed down and ended up with this halfbaked compromise..
Technically, both compatibility with EU law and international law is yet to be decided, with the international law incompatibility already being pretty obvious. In Germany, the latter incompatibility is not immediately problematic. This may be different for other countries. The former may still manifest insofar as lawsuits will be brought forward.
However, we're already pretty sure that the current change in law will require further tuning as issues become apparent. Still, you need to start somewhere.
It's not like Germany is the first country in the EU to do this. Malta and Luxembourg had already legalized possession and cultivation and it's basically legal in Spain too.
And "international law" seems like a joke at this point anyway (in general, but especially regarding weed). Canada went way further with no repercussions and more importantly the US which basically forced the 1988 Convention/treaty on the rest of the world is completely flaunting it itself.
Meanwhile Thailand is rolling back it's legalisation of cannabis. Even though the industry brought in over a billion USD, it will be banned at the end of the year, citing protection of health of the youth. The population seems to approve of the reversal (medical use is kept). I think a few countries will be watching carefully after seeing how the experiment goes.
Whilst the majority of users seem to be fine, it can absolutely and seriously ruin some people's mental health.
Germany's largest party, the CDU/CSU union, has already announced that they intend to revoke the law ("make cannabis illegal again"). It is only a matter of time until they run the state again, and I'd say whether they actually work on the revocation depends on the junior political party they will need to form the government.
For example, if in 2025 the CDU/CSU and SPD form the new goverment (a constellation that has happened already a few times), I'd say chances are high that cannabis is going to be illegal again. And this turnout is a relatively probable scenario.
Of course, it can affect people’s mental health if they consume too much of it. Lack of education and some people’s self-control were never a reason to make alcohol illegal.
This is the first that I am hearing about the reversal. I am a bit disappointed, but I did see news about the rollout. It was pretty intense and probably not much regulation. So, is this a reactionary response to minority issues or was there a consistent issue?
> Whilst the majority of users seem to be fine, it can absolutely and seriously ruin some people's mental health.
I never doubt that marijuana can negatively affect certain people with the potential for mental health issues, but are there any hard science about the affect on mental health? You mention "majority" vs "some". Is that 51/49? 99.99/.01? The former sounds significant; the latter sounds like a stat to push an agenda.
> there are more people destroying their lives with drugs than people who can regulate their use
I agree with that for some drugs, but certainly not cannabis. That's observational; there are simply not enough reported cases of problems to make that true wrt cannabis use. Of course, that leaves the possibility that cases aren't reported.
Again, based on personal observation, I would be amazed if the ratio of cannabis users that 'waste their life' on the drug is as high as the ratio of alcohol users that do the same. And that's before you even take into account the harm caused to others.
> more people destroying their lives with drugs than people who can regulate their use.
I think you are either intentionally exaggerating, or vastly overestimate the number of people destroying their lives, or underestimate the number of people who use drugs (especially alcohol, consumed by >50% of the US population).
In my mind either you are for legalization of all drugs or you are for criminalization of tobacco, alcohol, and sugar.
Either we have the freedom to consume what we like and deal with the consequences or state has to nanny us and prevent us from consuming harmful substances altogether.
People are fast to point out that prohibition don’t work, but if there were no legal ways to obtain sugar a lot less would be consumed and a lot of weight would be shed by our fat population
Just imagine if harm and healthiness were actually the determining factor for what is and is not legal. Your comment made me imagine what the political parties might look like in the US. Would conservative and liberals move towards meats vs carbs vs veg?
I wonder if big-Keto would push for harsh penalties to illegal bakers? Maybe a 3 (bread) slices law would rise?
That doesn’t make sense. First in that list you have meat and vegetables which are produce and carbohydrates which are source of calories - i.e. vegetables are constructed partly from carbohydrates.
Sugar is easily the most addictive thing majority of population consumes regularly and it has huge health implications. Banning sugar would disproportionately improve health of human race compared to negative effects of allowing free range over all drugs
> Because it's really hard to take away something that is legal.
I agree, it is really hard to take something away that is established. About 10% of germans consume Cannabis at least once a year even though it is illegal. [1]
Keeping cannabis illegal has the same effect as prohibition of alcohol: higher substance concentration, more black market and greater health risks by acquisition through dubios sources.
Alcohol has a much more detrimental effect and still is completely legal (also: any attempt of banning it had quite bad results). So yes, some people don't handle it wisely. Lets not even get started on tobacco.
Or all the other substances, which are not drugs but very bad for your health when overconsumed. Like all the sugars, unhealthy fats. Fast food.
We cannot and should not penaltize all these things just because a few cannot handle them. Rather, we should invest into helping and preventing abuse. Of all above.
Same with many other drugs that has medicinal value, IMO. We can have a war on opioids all we want, but there are people who do need it, right? There will always be people who abuse it, be it cannabis or whatever else. I know for a fact it makes me lazy, so I do not use it.
Reading this thread there are clearly a lot of HN users who are fairly out-of-touch with weed. Which is totally fine, but in case you do decide at some point you want to try it here's what I'd throw out there for you:
I think almost everybody can enjoy it, perhaps in the top 5% of safest drugs of all (cannot die from any amount, no interactions I know of, no hangover). I think it will replace alcohol as people learn to have a good time with it.
- Start small. (.5mg THC : 1.5 CBD would be reasonable).
- Start with higher ratios of CBD to THC to make sure you have a good time. Basically the amount of THC is the amount of trippiness/woah/anxiety and the CBD is the amount of calmness. Dispensaries will give consistent product, in terms of labeling the ratios and those ratios being correct.
- Give 90-120 minutes for an edible to kick in.
- If you're already an anxious person do it in a place you can feel totally comfortable and safe
- Maybe have some pure CBD oil (purchasable at most grocery stores) to dial the whole thing back if it becomes too much. It won't make you sober, but it will help stop you mind from "racing" (whether from THC/anxiety/whatever). Also a great cure for headaches.
- I don't recommend it if you're underage, or if your brain feels too haywire. I do recommend it for people who are overly-intense nerds who would join the CIA and find the world very black-and-white.
- If you have a nice place where you can eat some healthy food, stretch outside in the sun, listen to birds, without fear of being bothered by cops / whatever, then that sounds like a great time. Maybe bring along a very trusted friend. It won't make you have a good time, but a lot of things you already enjoy will feel more enriching.
- There's a bunch of other standard advice online too (hydrate, etc, all important).
- Everybody reacts differently, don't let anybody else's preferences override your own. Do the amount you want of what you want, only when you want. Never push it onto people, even if you love it, and don't hang out with people who push.
That above description is overpreparation for something that you might not even notice the first time you have it, but it's kind of like skiing, better to start slow -- if you've got time on your hands it's better to be patient -- otherwise it's entirely possible to have a bad time quickly (particularly for nerds, I find nerdier friends have like up to 10x the reaction to weed as non-nerdy friends).
It's getting harder to find very small dosage weed in places where it's legal. There's an arms race to produce the most potent weed because it can be sold to the top 10% of weed buyers.
The trick is to mix it with (already legal) high CBD/low THC weed, both to just dilute it, but also because CBD counteracts some of the negative side effects of THC, such as paranoia.
I've lived in California, now Amsterdam. Both places where weed has been legal for a while, but because it's legal there's an incredible economic pressure to grow the most potent weed possible. I'm like a 2 joint a year kind of guy, and it's nearly impossible to find "ditch weed" that doesn't put me on the floor for 4 hours.
It might not translate for US folks, but the concept of "Gedoogbeleid" (loosely tolerance) applies here. Personal consumption of weed is decriminalized. Coffeeshops have strict rules they have to follow or the police will shut down their stores, this varies by town and region.
Yes, that is the normal advice. I smoke so called shorties when I come home from work, I hate being too high but I do enjoy the relaxation weed brings.
I've smoked CBD only strains recently and they do hit the spot as well.
As a small l libertarian, I’m totally fine with any and all drugs being legal provided there is a clause that government doesn’t need to support you if they ruin your life.
Without regard to the philisophical aspects of the extent of state welfare, such a clause would be unworkable. How could you fairly determine the cause of health issues? If one gets completely drunk, stumbles onto a road and is hit by a car, you could say that intoxication caused the accident. Would you refuse to treat that person's injuries - which are themselves nothing to do with alcohol - due to that? What about if there was a very bad unmarked pothole which caused the person to trip, a hazard that exists regardless of intoxication?
All these questions could be resolved with litigation using many of the same processes that the courts already have. However, I would wager that the state would spend as much additional money on the judiciary as they would simply providing an unconditional paramedic service in the first place! This also applies to financial situations, because it's hard to, say, confidently ascribe the failure of someone's life savings on a supposedly poor choice they made while under the influence of a drug. I personally think it would be inhumane not to provide a safety net, but it would also be considerably cheaper to!
The government already takes care of many people who ruin their lives in different ways. Cannabis being a bit more legal doesn't change this. I suspect it even lowers the overall cost, as it lifts some burden off of law enforcement.
Then you should become a Big-R Republican if you already aren't -- they're all about punishing people for perceived moral failings by withholding health care and food and education.
The worst part about it is that it will be harder to get hhc. For me suffering from bipolar hhc is a game changer no more benzos for sleep and no anxiety that thc might catapult me into mania.
When I was in Uni, we tested air quality at bus stops (where most people complain about smoke smell) and then a few meters away. Turned out that most of the pollution came not from cigarette smoke but from cars, tires and whatnot.
I also don't see how it would stay in the air longer than tabaco. That just seems your subjective thinking that's not based on anything at all.
I think most people are moving to vaping, which produced much, much less smell. Plus, vapour doesn't "stick" to things and make them smell forever more like smoke does.
I used to vape indoors, and vape absolutely does stick to everything if you don't have good ventilation. It doesn't smell like toboacco, but it's this greasy/sticky coating instead. It was total shit-show to clean everything when I moved.
I've vaped indoors for 3 years, using a dry herb vape with flower on prescription, and we haven't noticed anything at all. I have family that visit once a year, they were here recently and didn't notice anything (my wife asked, because she's paranoid about the smell). Many others seem to agree. Maybe it's different if you use carts, I don't know what's even in those.
There is no fire/combustion involved when vaping. Vaping is when a liquid is heated up enough to turn it into a vapour. The same process as heating water enough turns it into steam. That's it. The liquid will have flavourings and nicotine added to it, meaning the vapour produced will deliver said flavourings and nicotine to the person inhaling it. The exhalation will contain remnants of that vapour along with just water vapour - most of the flavourings and nicotine will be absorbed by the person who inhaled it.
I always get puzzled as to why people say they are /disgusted/ by vaping, or why they equate combustion based smoking with the non-combustion based conversion of a liquid into a vapour. Help me understand you. What part disgusts you about vaping? That you can see a cloud of water vapour being exhaled? Have you ever been out somewhere where a fog machine is being used? Congratulations, because the liquid used for the fog machines is mostly the same as used in vapes and also asthma inhalers.
You might as well get "disgusted" by the fact that if you are in a room with another person, you'll inevitably be inhaling part of that other person's exhalation! I guess that's okay though, because their exhalation products aren't visible to you?
I'd be opposed to legislating against anything just for being "disgusting"; there should be a stronger reason for us to limit each other's personal freedoms. In the specific case of vaping,I understand that secondhand "smoking" is still in issue, so that's the reason to legislate restrictions.
You are talking about the concept of countries - an idea. A country is something that is enlivened in the minds of individuals - without people thinking in terms of 'Germany' or whatever there are no countries. It doesn't actually exist. It is a convention.
But unlike the neutral/useful conventions of driving on one side of the road, or having your cutlery set like so, this convention demands that you give it money, whether you agree with it or not. It will say which plants, what food, which wars, etc. It is a means of control, a way to get people to do things they wouldn't do, against their consciences, for the ostensible benefit of "the greater good", but in fact, for the benefit of those with power and money who draft special words everyone else has to follow.
As if anyone can tell another what is right or wrong.
Your philosophy on how to live life seems to be very different than most others'. You could at try to accept that and acknowledge the difference is on your side, instead of straight faced telling us that society doesn't exist and we're all wrong but you. The way you muddle through concepts doesn't really seem consistent and it might be worth your time examining your beliefs more closely in relation to one another.
That's literally what the German government is doing. They are giving you back the choice, without the threat of punishment.
I get that you're an anarchist or whatever, but repealing prohibition laws shouldn't be something you argue against just because you disagree with the concept of laws as a whole.
That said, if you think that a lawless society would afford you any freedom, you are entirely mistaken.
A lawbound state gives me the freedom to live my life without being murdered by someone who knows there are no repercussions for doing so. If you think there is a good reason to allow murder, then please explain what that is. I do agree with you that many laws are overreaching, like those that prevent me from doing something with no negative effect on anyone else, just like the law we're discussing here.
You are never safe. The police likely won't save you, they won't even bother investigating theft.
You'd have better service if you paid a private police force to protect you.
Maybe without all the waste in government budgets your private police will have more money to spend on patrolling the streets of your neighborhood and installing cameras to actually do something useful.
I was responding to the line "if it is only the laws that are keeping people from killing each other, we are in big trouble". My point is that clearly it's not only the laws (and the parent commenter never claimed so), but they do help.
Sure you can replace the current system of laws & law enforcement with something else. (And if you tore down the state, something would certainly fill that power vacuum.) But then you have to grapple with basically all the same problems.
To talk about 'murder', is to talk in terms of the provided lawbook - 'murder' is a criminal term. You are unable to think neutrally, your frame of reference itself has been determined for you. The term you mean I think is 'killing'.
Do you really think it is the state that is giving you freedom to live your life though? Or, could it be, that the state enables millions of immoral transgressions (tax aka stealing, etc) and calls them "right" or "good"?
1. There are further limits on the size of harvests, making growing at home pretty much infeasible.
2. German rental law is very restrictive. Essentially, for most purposes, you are the master of the place you inhabit. Such a restriction will probably not be legal and thus non-binding, even if stated in the contract.
Growing at home is not infeasable. The 50g concern dried weight. Its still not clear how the law will be interpreted, we will have to see what the courts will say.
I can't think of a law that would allow landlords to enforce that in a rental contract. Renting is heavily regulated in Germany.
Consumption is different, but the new law is very specific in what is allowed and what isn't, and an unconditional ban is unlawful, as is already the case with cigarettes.
Landlords successfully get people to adhere to all kinds of technically illegal rules. If you need a space, you sign whatever they give you. Waiting times for a consultation with renters associations in Berlin are 3-4 weeks right now.
For example, they often prohibit plants of certain sizes on balconies, and entirely elsewhere.
Legal? Maybe not - but here in reality you have little recourse.
You sue the landlord immediately after signing the contract and get thousands of euros in a few years... Just be a member of Mieterverein, pay them that 70€ a year and you pay nothing else for the lawyer.
I know a few people who took way too expensive rental contract, sued and got the money back in court. It is annoying that you need to do this, but there is a way and it only costs your time.
Okay, but in that reality you're morally perfectly fine by just not telling your landlord. Landlords cannot legally visit you in the apartment unless they give you proper notice in advance and they must not keep any keys while the apartment is rented.
That is the nice thing about German contract law. If you as a private person (v.s. a head of a business) sign a contract, you are widely protected from unfair contract terms. This applies to any contract but especially employment or rent contracts.
Beware if you buy a house from a natural person though, even if the house is sold through a professional broker, you are pretty much on your own. And filing a private lawsuit later gets very expensive (and can get pretty nasty).
As renter protection in Germany is extremely high, and for example smoking or animals cannot be prohibited with a lot of difficulty, I don't see how that could be legal.
This is the case in the Netherlands, despite a better legalization status. I’ve never seen a rental allow growing cannabis. Some larger rental agencies even perform yearly inspections.
So the justification given is that if police find a scaled grow house operation going on, the landlord is fined and the house is seized/boarded up. So they are softly incentivized to regularly inspect and prevent such a situation.
However, I do believe it’s not absolutely mandatory. During COVID, I was able to cancel the yearly inspection twice.
I totally agree. It is, however a flawed argument in the context of legalization. One of the arguments for the legalization by the health ministry is that prohibition has been ineffective, factually not avoiding or even reducing (excess) weed consumption (among minors). Prohibition has criminalized many people for their consumption (via necessary circumstances such as possession), at the same time often denying help to those consumers who needed it.
The goals of drug policy should be: - help consumers to avoid or treat harmful consumption, especially minors - do not criminalize adult citizens who do no harm to others
Neither of these goals have been achieved by prohibition. Legalization is not going to help on the first point either, but might make it easier.
In the context of the second point: prohibition has been a nasty vehicle for arbitrary, often racist policing. Given that prohibition is not realistically possible in full consequence, the inherent tools of criminalizing alleged drug users are often applied to specific groups only, often for racist motives. Throwing around cocaine at the company party of your startup will hardly be punished, whereas the immigrant neighbor ends up in jail for smoking a joint.