4 ms·
There exists a political climate where any negative effects are seized upon as evidence that cannabis should remain banned, however inapplicable (for example be
by takno 10y ago
There exists a political climate where any negative effects are seized upon as evidence that cannabis should remain banned, however inapplicable (for example because they are a small study of chronic users after a week's withdrawal). In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views.
- DanBC 10y ago> In such circumstances it is often couterproductive to hold nuanced views. That's what parent poster is asking for. Any time I post about cannabis on HN i have to include the line "I am strongly in favour of drug legalisation" or tediously predictable replies accusing me of shilling for the government appear. And my position - that for some people smoking large amounts of cannabis is probably a bad idea (especially if they've young; have a history of psychosis; or have a family history of psychosis) - doesn't feel particularly un-nuanced.
- pc86 10y agoI'd be more interested in your nuanced opinions if you weren't a government shill.
- DanBC 10y agoI'm not a government shill, which makes it even more frustrating.
- dang 10y ago> I'd be more interested in your nuanced opinions if you weren't a government shill. Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, and neither are accusations of shilling or astroturfing without evidence. (An opposing opinion is emphatically not evidence.) We ban users that do this, so I'm dismayed that such an established user as you would set this kind of example for others. We'll put it down as the kind of lapse that happens to all of us on the internet, but please don't do it again.