4 ms·

Created an account just to vote this up and agree. Personally, I enjoy smoking/using marijuana. I think it should be legal. I agree with all the typical talkin

Created an account just to vote this up and agree. Personally, I enjoy smoking/using marijuana. I think it should be legal. I agree with all the typical talking point about legalizing it and the social harm caused by the drug war. But nothing is more annoying that potheads pretending that some minor study somewhere showing that marijuana has some minor positive effect on something or other means it's a "miracle drug." What is even worse - various nefarious actors - from intelligence agencies, to Big Pharma, to various players with their own agendas, have a long history of, and a very obvious financial/power stake in, promoting - or perhaps over-promoting - certain social trends, including recreational drug use - and have co-opted a HUGE group of people who should know better to exaggerate the benefits of various things. St. John's Wart, ten years ago, was "just as effective as Prozac," and everyone was talking about "herbal remedies." The reality was that daily exercise was, for most people, "just as effective as Prozac" but that doesn't have the "cool factor" of being "like, against the drug war, man." Intelligence agencies have been trying to use drugs like LSD for a half-century to do what in their own lingo is "mind control" yet every time some ad supported, Fortune 500, In-Q-Tel publication like Wired.com tells us how "all the super-smart Silicon Valley execs are micro-dosing on LSD" even hinting at a slight objection will get you downvoted to hell on these social media sites like Hacker News and reddit. There's a reason for that but no one wants to risk their social media karma pointing it out - you might be accused of being a "alt right neo-nazi trump kkk racist sexist homphobica" something or other.

pstuart 9y ago
There's multiple reported cases of the medicinal value of cannabis. Regardless of that, the harm reduction of allowing people to "self-medicate" with it vs. alcohol or opiates is worthwhile. Your LSD theory is, um, odd. Just because these drugs have overly enthusiastic users doesn't diminish the fact that they do have some real value.
- agreewiththis 9y ago
  >Your LSD theory is, um, odd. Really? You must be completely unfamiliar with the history of LSD, which was introduced to American (and Britain) by the CIA (and MI5/6.) Odd? I was 15 when I went to the public library and read the well-documented history via such famous books like "Acid Dreams" and "My Problem Child" and "Storming Heaven." What I say is "odd" is how the Silicon Valley/In-Q-Tel has been able to reintroduce LSD - and make it "cool" again - while conveniently ignoring the well-documented history of why stuff like LSD was made illegal in the first place. HINT: California parents in the 1960s were not particularly happy that intelligence agencies used their college aged children as subjects for unethical and in many cases out-right illegal drug experiments - and continued to do so when they used the democratic process to try to stop it. >Just because these drugs have overly enthusiastic users doesn't diminish the fact that they do have some real value. "Drugs" is a pretty wide category, isn't it? Heroin is a drug - so is aspirin. Would you care to be more specific?
  - zeofig 9y ago
    He said "these drugs", obviously referring to LSD, weed and other psychotropic drugs that are relatively harmless physiologically, i.e. the drugs your post is about. Of course, this is only one vector of incoherence in your rambling bundle.
    - agreewiththis 9y ago
      >other psychotropic drugs that are relatively harmless physiologically > one vector of incoherence in your rambling bundle. All the evidence of harm is played down while minuscule "benefits" are widely exaggerated in the media - by the same media companies that "just happen" to be funded by the same people promoting these same drugs. If I was instead talking about private industry, like say, Monsanto, I would be social media points on social media properties like Hacker News and reddit.com, which are typically funded by In-Q-Tel. But going against the institutional agenda of In-Q-Tel (i.e., intel agency) funded sites like Hacker News and reddit.com will - obviously - get downvotes and hostile trolling like "rambling bundle." I would challenge anyone to find In-Q-Tel funded media properties publishing anything even slightly negative about LSD - or even marijuana. In fact, try to find a published article that is not overtly pro-LSD in the various online publications funded by In-Q-Tel (CIA) since the 1990s - it's more difficult than it would seem. You will, on the other hand, be greeted with a well coordinated campaign of insults and "trolling" typified by such ad hom as "incoherence" and "rambling." It's a pattern that is extremely easy to detect."
      - KGIII 9y ago
        <meta/> Meh, I say stuff against the grain all the time. It is how you say it, defend it, and listen to replies. Stick around, you'll figure it out. Loads of smart people here. I often get voted down and then someone comes along and reads it. Votes don't much matter, so long as you try to follow the written rules. If you do make a claim, be ready to defend it with civility. Like all forums, some are more receptive than others. Here? I notice a higher percentage of reasonable and smart people. Keep am open mind, you can learn a lot here. HN is a great educational resource. That's how I typically see it. Sometimes, I get to share what I know but I usually just learn and click links. I lurked for like a year and a half before I posted. Seriously, stick it out. Civility goes a long ways here. It's sometimes amusing to see the crowd deal with uncivil responses. </meta>

pstuart 9y ago

There's multiple reported cases of the medicinal value of cannabis. Regardless of that, the harm reduction of allowing people to "self-medicate" with it vs. alcohol or opiates is worthwhile. Your LSD theory is, um, odd. Just because these drugs have overly enthusiastic users doesn't diminish the fact that they do have some real value.

agreewiththis 9y ago
>Your LSD theory is, um, odd. Really? You must be completely unfamiliar with the history of LSD, which was introduced to American (and Britain) by the CIA (and MI5/6.) Odd? I was 15 when I went to the public library and read the well-documented history via such famous books like "Acid Dreams" and "My Problem Child" and "Storming Heaven." What I say is "odd" is how the Silicon Valley/In-Q-Tel has been able to reintroduce LSD - and make it "cool" again - while conveniently ignoring the well-documented history of why stuff like LSD was made illegal in the first place. HINT: California parents in the 1960s were not particularly happy that intelligence agencies used their college aged children as subjects for unethical and in many cases out-right illegal drug experiments - and continued to do so when they used the democratic process to try to stop it. >Just because these drugs have overly enthusiastic users doesn't diminish the fact that they do have some real value. "Drugs" is a pretty wide category, isn't it? Heroin is a drug - so is aspirin. Would you care to be more specific?
- zeofig 9y ago
  He said "these drugs", obviously referring to LSD, weed and other psychotropic drugs that are relatively harmless physiologically, i.e. the drugs your post is about. Of course, this is only one vector of incoherence in your rambling bundle.
  - agreewiththis 9y ago
    >other psychotropic drugs that are relatively harmless physiologically > one vector of incoherence in your rambling bundle. All the evidence of harm is played down while minuscule "benefits" are widely exaggerated in the media - by the same media companies that "just happen" to be funded by the same people promoting these same drugs. If I was instead talking about private industry, like say, Monsanto, I would be social media points on social media properties like Hacker News and reddit.com, which are typically funded by In-Q-Tel. But going against the institutional agenda of In-Q-Tel (i.e., intel agency) funded sites like Hacker News and reddit.com will - obviously - get downvotes and hostile trolling like "rambling bundle." I would challenge anyone to find In-Q-Tel funded media properties publishing anything even slightly negative about LSD - or even marijuana. In fact, try to find a published article that is not overtly pro-LSD in the various online publications funded by In-Q-Tel (CIA) since the 1990s - it's more difficult than it would seem. You will, on the other hand, be greeted with a well coordinated campaign of insults and "trolling" typified by such ad hom as "incoherence" and "rambling." It's a pattern that is extremely easy to detect."
    - KGIII 9y ago
      <meta/> Meh, I say stuff against the grain all the time. It is how you say it, defend it, and listen to replies. Stick around, you'll figure it out. Loads of smart people here. I often get voted down and then someone comes along and reads it. Votes don't much matter, so long as you try to follow the written rules. If you do make a claim, be ready to defend it with civility. Like all forums, some are more receptive than others. Here? I notice a higher percentage of reasonable and smart people. Keep am open mind, you can learn a lot here. HN is a great educational resource. That's how I typically see it. Sometimes, I get to share what I know but I usually just learn and click links. I lurked for like a year and a half before I posted. Seriously, stick it out. Civility goes a long ways here. It's sometimes amusing to see the crowd deal with uncivil responses. </meta>