In Germany (and not just Germany probably) the use of cannabis, and other drugs apart from alcohol and nicotine, is significantly less widespread and normalized than in the US. It's definitely far from being as normalized as alcohol. (Although cannabis obviously became more pervasive in the past few decades. Perhaps not least due to exported US American TV shows normalizing it.)
Legalizing cannabis in such an environment seems to me like legalizing alcohol in a country where alcohol use isn't already normalized -- like in Iran. A very questionable idea. One would need strong arguments on why the expected benefits are larger than the expected harms.
> And this is all before considering the clear upsides to cannabis. The medicinal applications are real, and have enabled people to live better lives without the downsides of the other widely prescribed pharmaceutical options.
Yes, but using cannabis (THC, presumably) as a specialized medication is very different from legalizing it altogether. It would be no different from other drugs that need approval from a government agency with regards to efficacy and safety, before being available only with a prescription.
(Being available with prescription only makes sense if there is a significant chance of abuse. Which is the case if the substance is addictive. Which suggests non-addictive substances like, perhaps, LSD and psilocybin, could be freely available. Though I'm not an expert on these drugs.)
> Altering our mental states by consuming substances seems like a deeply human thing (in addition to be observed in other species), and is deeply embedded in us. I think there are very good reasons to ban some substances for the sake of public health. But I don't think a default stance against mind alteration is a good one either.
I would argue that a lot of the harm comes from a substance a) being addictive, and b) being significantly unhealthy. To the point where the net harm probably outweighs the net benefit. Caffeine is pretty much the only substance I know that is addictive while being quite harmless. But actually banning things has to consider the real chance of being successful with such a ban. The more people are already addicted or otherwise accustomed to a drug (e.g. to cigarettes or alcohol) the less realistic is a ban being successful and enforceable.
Can I ask where you're from? I'm just curious about worldview based on geographic factors and how that might influence perspective.
> I would argue that a lot of the harm comes from a substance a) being addictive, and b) being significantly unhealthy. To the point where the net harm probably outweighs the net benefit.
I think it's important to point out that cannabis is a plant, and has a drastically different risk profile than alcohol. You keep grouping the two as if they're similar, but they're not. I say this as someone who has clearly experienced the downsides, but who still doesn't think banning it makes any sense, especially if there are criminal penalties involved.
Historically, the bans have been predicated on lies, and associating it with harder drugs that are a clear and obvious danger to public health. The issue I have with your argument is that it presupposes that these are plants to be legalized (vs. legal by default). The burden of proof should lie on why we think they are harmful, and why they shouldn't be legal by default, IMO. And when looked at through that lens, existing policies have clearly not been aligned with reality.
I'd support common sense regulations and requirements around public education, maybe even limits on strength. But there's a wide spectrum of possibility between banning something and making sure that people use it safely.
If we want to focus on banning substances that are addictive and a net harm to society, there is a lot more low hanging fruit across the food industry. Let's start with sugar.
Legalizing cannabis in such an environment seems to me like legalizing alcohol in a country where alcohol use isn't already normalized -- like in Iran. A very questionable idea. One would need strong arguments on why the expected benefits are larger than the expected harms.
> And this is all before considering the clear upsides to cannabis. The medicinal applications are real, and have enabled people to live better lives without the downsides of the other widely prescribed pharmaceutical options.
Yes, but using cannabis (THC, presumably) as a specialized medication is very different from legalizing it altogether. It would be no different from other drugs that need approval from a government agency with regards to efficacy and safety, before being available only with a prescription.
(Being available with prescription only makes sense if there is a significant chance of abuse. Which is the case if the substance is addictive. Which suggests non-addictive substances like, perhaps, LSD and psilocybin, could be freely available. Though I'm not an expert on these drugs.)
> Altering our mental states by consuming substances seems like a deeply human thing (in addition to be observed in other species), and is deeply embedded in us. I think there are very good reasons to ban some substances for the sake of public health. But I don't think a default stance against mind alteration is a good one either.
I would argue that a lot of the harm comes from a substance a) being addictive, and b) being significantly unhealthy. To the point where the net harm probably outweighs the net benefit. Caffeine is pretty much the only substance I know that is addictive while being quite harmless. But actually banning things has to consider the real chance of being successful with such a ban. The more people are already addicted or otherwise accustomed to a drug (e.g. to cigarettes or alcohol) the less realistic is a ban being successful and enforceable.