2 ms·
That doesn't even make sense. Who's to say he would not have done even better if he had not smoked pot? How can he assume his case generalizes across the popula
by Camillo 11y ago
That doesn't even make sense. Who's to say he would not have done even better if he had not smoked pot? How can he assume his case generalizes across the population? How does someone who is So Very Smart not realize this? Did his AP courses not give him an inkling of the scientific method?
For what it's worth, that blog post caused a tiny increase in my propensity to believe marijuana is harmful.
- engx 11y agoAnd maybe Yegge would had accomplished less without weed? The point is, he still accomplished all that while having smoked a lot of weed. True you can't generalize across the population but his story is still relevant. Maybe Francis Crick would had invented time travel if it wasn't for LSD. I know 10 doctors and surgeons, and the majority smoke weed and do cocaine (not everyday / nor every week). I wouldn't say they are great people though.
- brc 11y agoYes, precisely. So many times a debate is about whether or not something does measurable harm. People or policies with a measure if success are often cited as evidence of lack of harm. Whether it's taking drugs or raising the tax rate, if the subjects in question continue to prosper, it is assumed no harm is done. However people forget to ask the question whether the outcomes are maximised? Could the blogger have been the next Steve Jobs but for the weed use? I don't pretend to have the answer but I see the question is rarely asked.