Hacker News Reader

It was strange how the article kept talking about the downsides, and the downsides were just anecdotes, and nothing else. Did I miss something in the article, or was I just supposed to know the downsides before I read this? Risks like "budtenders providing medical advice" have zero to do with near-constant cannabis use.

View on HN

I get that the article is supposed to be a counter-point to the rapid legalization, but you are absolutely right.

Being almost impossible to overdose on means they can't use scary death statistics, and it might be too early to have any meaningful studies done on productivity/motivation/etc. That being said, this article is really as useful as your anti-cannabis family member at Thanksgiving telling you stories about the consequences of cannabis.

I mean, that's why the article is titled "America's Invisible Pot Addicts" (emphasis added). It's harder to quantify when the harms are mostly psychological/relating to QOL decreases, rather than explicitly medical/criminal outcomes. And because it flies in the face of the pro-legalization/decriminalization narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com