Hacker News Reader

Comment by anamax | Hacker News Reader

"The city’s police will make it among their lowest priorities to arrest or prosecute anyone engaging in activities"

[1] "[Lowest] priority to arrest" doesn't imply "legal". The state laws are still on the books and you can still be arrested. (Every policy has exceptions.) [2] Police don't make prosecution decisions, DAs do.

View on HN

The title says decriminalize, not legalize. Decriminalize means that in effect (in practice) the police are busy enough that it is equal to it being legal, and this policy is official.

There's a difference between decriminalized on paper, and decriminalized in practice. In practice, something can be decriminalized even though it isn't official policy.

Such an official policy is still different from legal.

IIRC in Santa Cruz drugs like cannabis have been decriminalized for a long time this way (2005?). And probably other drugs as well.

My point is that you can't rely on "decriminalize".

"in practice" means that it's still available, no matter how "official" the policy may be, when "felony disrespect" is the real issue.

That depends on your risk assessment. Everyone can do their own on that one. Here's my take:

The likelihood that you get hit by a car is probably higher than you get busted for weed in Santa Cruz. Or The Netherlands, for that matter. I am from The Netherlands. Weed is decriminalized here, too. Many Dutch rely on that, including those who got a lot to lose. Personally, I don't as of now, but I used to in the distant past before I concluded the risk for certain outcome like psychosis is not worth it. I also don't feel the urge anymore.

The risk of psychosis is higher in moderate coffee or alcohol use than it is with cannabis. The touted psychosis risk is mostly FUD: it only applies to those genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, which is such a strong predisposition that the people with those genes will develop symptoms sooner or later. They also definitely need to avoid coffee, tobacco and alcohol, but somehow there’s not so much ranting and raving going on about that.

I disagree, especially considering high THC strains. In general, coffee, tobacco and alcohol are milder. People can do stupid stuff after having too much alcohol, but I'm not sure I would consider that psychosis. Having too much THC can make someone feel a bit crazy (or maybe a lot crazy). It can even be somewhat psychedelic at higher doses, so there's just some variability there. The thing is that THC can also make people feel pretty relaxed, so they wouldn't necessarily want to go out and do something stupid, but I'm just saying that it isn't a guarantee. I think there is some risk, at least for acute episodes, and I personally don't think it's just FUD.

The claim is that THC somehow causes craziness, and it’s usually paired with claims that CBD inhibits those effects.

However, see this:

https://jcannabisresearch.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186...

> Fixed effects regressions showed that, controlling for time-invariant user characteristics, mid and high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels were the primary independent predictor of increased symptom relief, and that when broken out by symptom type, this effect was only statistically significant for our largest sample of users, those reporting anxiety rather than agitation/irritability or stress. Cannabidiol (CBD) levels were generally not associated with changes in symptom intensity levels. In a minority of cannabis use sessions (< 13%), cannabis users reported anxiogenic-related negative side effects (e.g., feeling anxious, irritable, paranoid, rapid pulse, or restless), whereas in a majority of sessions (about 66%), users reported positive anxiolytic side effects (e.g., feeling chill, comfy, happy, optimistic, peaceful, or relaxed).

> higher THC levels were the strongest predictors of relief

I agree about THC being a symptom reliever. I myself don't care much for CBD, although I have heard it works for some people. Anyway, I'm just not sure I'd put cannabis in the same class as alcohol, tobacco and coffee, in terms of psychosis risk, although I don't think that cannabis should be federally illegal though either.

I wouldn’t put them in the same category either; psychosis is much more likely with those than with cannabis.

As someone with autism diagnosis who had multiple psychosis due to cannabis yet none from alcohol and coffee, I respectfully disagree.

You already stated that you are not neurotypical, so why would your anecdotal experience count in a case that concerns everyone?

Also, how can you be certain your psychoses were not caused by concommittant use of coffee/alcohol and cannabis? Especially coffee, since it contains monoamine oxidase inhibitors that are known to be stored in brain fatty tissues for months after cessation of use.

> The likelihood that you get hit by a car is probably higher than you get busted for weed in Santa Cruz.

Even if that's true on average, it isn't necessarily true for everyone. Different people have different risk profiles for different risks. (There are people who wouldn't be arrested for mushrooms in Seattle under the old rules even if they publically dosed a bus full of children while police watched. Meanwhile, there are people who will be arrested if they're in a crosswalk when the light turns yellow.)

Moreover, the Netherlands are not Santa Cruz or Seattle.

Exactly. Lowest priority means it will only get trotted out as an extra charge for additional negotiation leverage when they're throwing the book at someone they really want to screw or to give a veneer of legitimacy to a contempt of cop arrest.

The whole idea of 'throwing the book at someone' must end. Either people should be treated equally (i.e., everyone have the same book thrown at them) or the laws that most people aren't charged with ought to be removed from the books.

I'm a proponent of "single charge per case". If the cops go for the big headline grabbing charge the penalties are still plenty stiff but it removes a huge amount of the incentive for people to take bad plea deals and removes an opportunity for the cops to abusively charge people with stuff with the expectation of them wasting money, the excessive charges being dropped and the realistic ones sticking.

If someone burns a building down killing someone or a drug deal goes bad ending in a shootout then the prosecution can either pick murder or the lesser charge. Either charge will put them away long enough and if it was really a murder then adding arson or drug dealing on top doesn't really change anything but it makes it hard for the cops to charge someone with murder when the fact pattern doesn't justify that since they'll go to court and beat the charge.

This was the same legal mechanism Seattle used for cannabis for years before WA voted to legalize. Effectively it meant it was broadly treated as legal, but could be and was enforced unevenly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com