alt Hacker NewsMarijuana 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.
Replies
> 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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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
>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.
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.
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.