4 ms·

Megan McArdle: The Cost Of Meth Prohibition

17 points by cwan 16y ago

badwetter 16y ago
Damn Lobbyists! It's a matter of public safety and agree it should be available only via prescription IMO.
- tptacek 16y ago
  Huh? Really?
pragmatic 16y ago
Why is it important that Megan McArdle wrote this? (Her name is in the title, should I know of her for some reason?)
- tptacek 16y ago
  She's The Atlantic's resident libertarian blogger.
ubernostrum 16y ago
I suspect that, as with last time, I'll get to meet some people who conflate criticism of an unreliable source with ad hominem attacks, but this is your official reminder that: 1. Megan McArdle has a pretty lengthy documented history of playing at least somewhat loosely with her facts (and, frequently, of just outright misrepresenting or getting them wrong). 2. As such, it's probably a good idea to do some fact-checking as part of the process of evaluating her arguments, as the factual premises from which she reasons may not be sound. Examples of McArdle's past factual issues: * http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/01/22/abject_ignorance/ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/01/22... * http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/why-andrew-sullivan-is-right-about-megan-mcardle-but-not-in-the-way-he-thinks/ http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/why-andrew-sul... More such can be located through your friendly local search engine.
- MichaelGG 16y ago
  For the main citation from this particular article, it's easy enough to fact check: http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm "The number of past month methamphetamine users decreased between 2006 and 2008, but then increased in 2009. The numbers were 731,000 (0.3 percent) in 2006, 529,000 (0.2 percent) in 2007, 314,000 (0.1 percent) in 2008, and 502,000 (0.2 percent) in 2009."
- tptacek 16y ago
  This is a completely content-free comment. Unlike lots of HN people, I think ad-hom has its place. But it only adds value when it's relevant to the article. It isn't here. McArdle isn't asking you to put faith in her meth suppression or pharma background to understand her argument. She could be a semifunctional psychotic and this article would still be solid, if a bit boring.
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    The last time there was a McArdle article posted, I did some research and found issues with it; I also found that this is not uncommon for McArdle. So I posted a comment mentioning this, and got jumped on by a bunch of people for going ad hominem. So think of it as both public-service announcement (since it's still true that she's an unreliable source) and sociology experiment, to see how people react this time around.
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Please don't make every article McArdle writes be about McArdle herself. That's boring.

17 points by cwan 16y ago

badwetter 16y ago

Damn Lobbyists! It's a matter of public safety and agree it should be available only via prescription IMO.

tptacek 16y ago
Huh? Really?

pragmatic 16y ago

Why is it important that Megan McArdle wrote this? (Her name is in the title, should I know of her for some reason?)

tptacek 16y ago
She's The Atlantic's resident libertarian blogger.

ubernostrum 16y ago

I suspect that, as with last time, I'll get to meet some people who conflate criticism of an unreliable source with ad hominem attacks, but this is your official reminder that: 1. Megan McArdle has a pretty lengthy documented history of playing at least somewhat loosely with her facts (and, frequently, of just outright misrepresenting or getting them wrong). 2. As such, it's probably a good idea to do some fact-checking as part of the process of evaluating her arguments, as the factual premises from which she reasons may not be sound. Examples of McArdle's past factual issues: * http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/01/22/abject_ignorance/ http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/01/22... * http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/why-andrew-sullivan-is-right-about-megan-mcardle-but-not-in-the-way-he-thinks/ http://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/why-andrew-sul... More such can be located through your friendly local search engine.

MichaelGG 16y ago
For the main citation from this particular article, it's easy enough to fact check: http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9Results.htm "The number of past month methamphetamine users decreased between 2006 and 2008, but then increased in 2009. The numbers were 731,000 (0.3 percent) in 2006, 529,000 (0.2 percent) in 2007, 314,000 (0.1 percent) in 2008, and 502,000 (0.2 percent) in 2009."
tptacek 16y ago
This is a completely content-free comment. Unlike lots of HN people, I think ad-hom has its place. But it only adds value when it's relevant to the article. It isn't here. McArdle isn't asking you to put faith in her meth suppression or pharma background to understand her argument. She could be a semifunctional psychotic and this article would still be solid, if a bit boring.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  The last time there was a McArdle article posted, I did some research and found issues with it; I also found that this is not uncommon for McArdle. So I posted a comment mentioning this, and got jumped on by a bunch of people for going ad hominem. So think of it as both public-service announcement (since it's still true that she's an unreliable source) and sociology experiment, to see how people react this time around.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Please don't make every article McArdle writes be about McArdle herself. That's boring.