[everdrive]

Marijuana legalization arguments were my first introduction to motivated reasoning. I was pretty inclined to agree that locking up non-violent drug offenders was a net-harm to society. But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.

It seemed obvious to me that you could make a more realistic argument and just stick to an argument which states that due to drunk driving and domestic abuse, marijuana is less harmful overall than alcohol, but is treated as more dangerous. (and yes, the other side was a bit crazy too. "When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11")

Later research (such as this) has suggested a link between marijuana and psychosis, however the actual risk factors do seem difficult to nail down. (however, this is still a far cry from the claim that it's totally harmless)

What I ultimately learned is that in a pitched political battle, people actually damage their credibility because they're afraid to cede _any_ ground to the opposition, even when that means making unrealistic claims. A centrist (or just someone who is undecided) is not really taken in as much by these extremist argument, and to their eyes it damages the credibility of one or both sides.

[zug_zug]

Probably worth clarifying that when you say "But, the pro-legalization folks would..." you mean some stoners you met in college.

Because there are plenty of proponents who are not that... in fact 64% of Americans support making weed legal (2025), so it'd be really unfair to judge that movement based on those old experiences.

[cyanydeez]

Yeah, it sounds like hs confabulating arguments about pain reduction in cancer patients with "cures cancer" from some nebulous source.

Cherry picking is pretty much the same as motivated reasoning when making arguments.

[isx726552]

> But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.

Who seriously claimed that it “cures cancer”? There have been some claims that it helps alleviate nausea associated with chemotherapy, which is quite reasonable and will likely be proved out by evidence over time.

Really … who genuinely claimed it “cures” cancer?

[brailsafe]

I've heard people who clearly had psychological issues claim things like this, but nobody actually credible. Problem is that people fall down rabbit holes that perpetually reinforce their own spiral.

The combination of actual drugs and grief and real underlying mental disorders is a powerful and scary mix.

[gosub100]

I took it as more of an exaggeration of "medical marijuana" - a phrase you could rarely get away from in the 2000s.

[troosevelt]

There are things like "Rick Sampson oil". I'm sure there are believers.

[yieldcrv]

all legalization frameworks in the US already limit legal age of purchasing possession and consumption to 21 and over, specifically as a form of seeding ground to the opposition, specifically for the previously only anecdotal link to psychosis and underdeveloped minds of minors

[AlexandrB]

It's weird to frame regulating cannabis the same way we regulate other recreational drugs as some kind of compromise. Is the ideal pro-cannabis situation that anyone can buy it at any age?

[leptons]

>But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.

Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy. I'm very involved in legalization and I don't know anyone that is for legalization that thinks any of those things, never even heard anyone say such garbage. I think you may be cherry-picking the crazy here.

[AlexandrB]

I don't think you can frame some of these arguments as belonging to a fringe minority. I remember watching an episode of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit"[1](2004) where they featured several pro-legalization advocates. These folks said or implied similar things (it's not bad for you, it helps cancer patients). These were not marginal "crazy" voices.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_%26_Teller:_Bulls...

[bluGill]

I know that I too say and heard those arguments a lot. You do yourside a disservice by claiming it doesn't exist

[everdrive]

>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.

This was over 20 years ago, long before "nut-picking" became impossible to avoid. This is what I was hearing from my peers on my college campus. They may have had had extreme views, but this was long before modern social media surfaced only the craziest people for any given position.

>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.

Also, I disagree with this characterization. I am not crazy, it was unnecessarily rude to suggest otherwise. I'm repeating the arguments I heard from my actual peers. I'm not just finding extremists on the internet and painting the whole group by its worst members.

[buzzerbetrayed]

To be fair, the example they gave from the other side is far more fringe

> When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11

[ecshafer]

I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments. When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects, or people who were obviously compelled to smoke every day or as often as they could.... like some sort of addiction, while pro-legalization proponents argued it was totally not-addictive.

The anti-legalization side had a few odd arguments as well, and some old claims that were unfounded. So no hands were totally clean.

[estearum]

> I am firmly against marijuana legalization. This is partially because of this insanity of the pro-legalization arguments.

this is also just motivated reasoning

The insanity of the fringe pro-legalization arguments has no bearing on whether legalization is a good idea or not.

> When I would see friends/family that started smoking regularly become noticeably less intelligent while pro-legalization proponents would argue there are no negative side-effects

This is also just ripe for cognitive bias which is why we should use science to understand these types of claims.

[pipes]

Did the people you notice becoming less intelligent ever recover? I'm genuinely interested. My biggest regret in life is early years drug use, smoked my first joint at 13. Mdma 18. Cocaine late tewnties. I personally think marijuana might be worse than mdma but not by much. And cocaine is really bad for cardio vascular system, probably physically worst of all of them that I tried.

I think both mdma and marijuana cause anxiety and they mess with short term memory.

There doesn't seem to be a good answer to protecting kids from drugs. Heavily regulated legalisation might help or it might normalise drug use.

As an aside I personally think alcohol in very moderate use isn't really as harmful as other drugs. And is probably a net benefit for many. Even moderate use of illegal drugs seems to have bad affects on people.

Edit: added my thoughts on alcohol and something on cocaine use.

[dec0dedab0de]

I am firmly in favor of legalizing all drugs, except maybe antibiotics where overuse is causing harm for everyone.

The thing is, I 100% agree with your reasons for why it should be outlawed. I just think those are reasons to discourage using it, especially chronically.

However, I wholeheartedly believe the government should not have any say in how anyone lives their life, and treats their own body.

[something765478]

I'm curious, do you also think alcohol and tobacco should be banned? I definitely believe that marijuana use can lead to negative consequences, but I still think it is less dangerous than either of those 2 substances.

[aaomidi]

I never understand this line of thinking.

So the easiest way for an opposition to a good idea to get their way, is to go argue insane things on the opposite side?

Imagine if the oil industry starts paying people to go throw soup on paintings just to make the pro “let’s prevent climate change” people look stupid.

Oh. Wait.

[btreecat]

>I am firmly against marijuana legalization.

Is there an argument or data that could be presented that _would_ change your mind?

[croes]

But why is alcohol legal then? It has worse side effects and more collateral damage.

[whattheheckheck]

Are you also firmly for alcohol abolition? What about gambling?

[throwaway27448]

> What I ultimately learned is that in a pitched political battle, people actually damage their credibility because they're afraid to cede _any_ ground to the opposition

This could be a person making a bad argument, or it could be that the individual is the opposition trying to poison the well. Cf COINTELPRO. Largely any movement has people with insane takes, and it's impossible to tell the difference between good and bad faith actors.

That, and sometimes people just aren't trying to be persuasive at all. It's extremely rare to actually see someone persuaded about anything political without enormous amount of effort, or more realistically a change in material interests.

[Teever]

Yes, what you observed is people making unrealistic and disingenuous responses in reply to equally unrealistic and disingenuous reefer madness type propaganda.

What happened is that the people making these disengenuous comments in bad faith did not realize that so many others would watch them and without understanding hte context woudl pick up those same disingenuous arguments and take them as truth.

This is all the long term consequences of allowing Reefer Madness tier propaganda be published and not repudiated immediately.

[btreecat]

TBF, if your paraphrasing others as "curing cancer" but what they claimed is "treats cancer" then the issue may be comprehension or activite listening.

Something to consider.

[tuesdaynight]

Honestly, I consider myself a "centrist", but I'm always frustrated how that means "do not take sides" for some people (not saying that is your case). In this case, not taking sides means that weed is illegal and people go to jail if they dare to use it. In the country that I was born, it's still illegal. I know stoners there and it's crazy how they could spent years in prison if someone told the police that they cultivate cannabis in their house. They do not sell and do not share with anyone, but they are one call away to be jailed.

I get it when people talk about society effects, but how are my friends dangerous while buying and drinking a lot of alcohol is totally okay? Taking no sides in this case is just maintaining status quo, which is not a "centrist position" when one side can be jailed for using weed.

[cwmoore]

Indeed. What an asinine result. Let’s see the same study with alcohol, tobacco, and prescription medications before putting out words that have meanings.