5 ms·

You make a good point. Also I don't like the righteous attitude of the article. That drugs can be safely used (not abused) seems omitted. 'tis about teens thoug

You make a good point. Also I don't like the righteous attitude of the article. That drugs can be safely used (not abused) seems omitted. 'tis about teens though so I wouldn't want them near the stuff, but aren't drugs part of growing up? “Why not orchestrate a social movement around natural highs: around people getting high on their own brain chemistry—because it seems obvious to me that people want to change their consciousness—without the deleterious effects of drugs?” If you want an answer to why not, because drugs are not intrinsically bad and can give you more than a life without drugs IMO. Or they can destroy you, I grant. “We learned through the studies that we need to create circumstances in which kids can lead healthy lives, and they do not need to use substances, because life is fun, and they have plenty to do—and they are supported by parents who will spend time with them.” 'Because they have plenty to do' Hmm - I did spend part of my childhood on some crappy estates and there wasn't things to do, and no money to do it. And you didn't much want to go outside because it didn't feel safe. It wasn't. 'and they are supported by parents' - another presupposition that parents are good and nurturing. Not always. Perhaps in a rich and wise society you can mostly make this possible though. I like their way of trying to take the pressure off kids so as to reduce the "rat park" effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park) and I think it's great. Kids don't develop properly in a pressure cooker. Overall, they're doing the right thing. Just don't overdo it.

frosted-flakes 6y ago
FYI, throwaway accounts are highly discouraged on HN.
- detaro 6y ago
  Their account is 10 months old and has more karma than yours, it's not a "throwaway" in that sense. And throwaways are fine if needed, just constantly creating new accounts is discouraged.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  If I'd been a bit more awake I'd have called it 'anon' rather than throwaway (for privacy's sake), but I take your point and the reasoning behind it. Of greater import, if you have something to say about my post, disagreement included of course, I'm happy to listen.
  - rz2k 6y ago
    In my opinion the widespread use of pseudoanonymous accounts on Hacker News prevents it from becoming like Quora, which to me seem entirely about personal brand marketing rather than an exchange of ideas. When people do identify themselves here it's almost always some relevant context. The move to hiding vote totals probably helped, too.
    - frosted-flakes 6y ago
      Anonymous is fine, as long as you don't change who you are every week. That's usually what throwaway accounts are used for, and why I wrongly assumed that this user was using a throwaway account.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Yeah, apologies for that. I just went off the name and didn't click through to your profile and see that you're an established user. I think dang or sctb can change it for you, if you email them. You're comment was already downvoted before I saw it, by the way.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      No problem, no worries. I never assumed you were the downvoter either.
jacquesm 6y ago
> aren't drugs part of growing up? No, they're not. They can be but they don't have to be.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  No you're right. I put it badly. I meant not that they should be, but that in many cases they usually are[0] therefore we might look at this not from an idealistic viewpoint, but knowing it happens and taking a minimising and harm reduction approach. Which is what the article is discussing, and what I agreed with. But keeping drugs away from kids (a good thing) was being mixed up with a general anti-drugs message which I didn't like and which may prove counterproductive in the same way the extreme view put around in the US about no sex before marriage just didn't work. There was a case in the UK a few years ago of a man who allowed his kids and their mates to smoke weed in his house. His reasoning was that they wee going to do it anyway so he'd prefer to have it happen somewhere safe and where he could monitor it. The judge didn't look kindly on that I recall. I'm really not sure where I stand on that either. [0] Not in my case I add, the kids around me were getting pissed, smoking, smoking mj, trying other stuff, I didn't.

frosted-flakes 6y ago

FYI, throwaway accounts are highly discouraged on HN.

detaro 6y ago
Their account is 10 months old and has more karma than yours, it's not a "throwaway" in that sense. And throwaways are fine if needed, just constantly creating new accounts is discouraged.
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
If I'd been a bit more awake I'd have called it 'anon' rather than throwaway (for privacy's sake), but I take your point and the reasoning behind it. Of greater import, if you have something to say about my post, disagreement included of course, I'm happy to listen.
- rz2k 6y ago
  In my opinion the widespread use of pseudoanonymous accounts on Hacker News prevents it from becoming like Quora, which to me seem entirely about personal brand marketing rather than an exchange of ideas. When people do identify themselves here it's almost always some relevant context. The move to hiding vote totals probably helped, too.
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Anonymous is fine, as long as you don't change who you are every week. That's usually what throwaway accounts are used for, and why I wrongly assumed that this user was using a throwaway account.
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  Yeah, apologies for that. I just went off the name and didn't click through to your profile and see that you're an established user. I think dang or sctb can change it for you, if you email them. You're comment was already downvoted before I saw it, by the way.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    No problem, no worries. I never assumed you were the downvoter either.

jacquesm 6y ago

> aren't drugs part of growing up? No, they're not. They can be but they don't have to be.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
No you're right. I put it badly. I meant not that they should be, but that in many cases they usually are[0] therefore we might look at this not from an idealistic viewpoint, but knowing it happens and taking a minimising and harm reduction approach. Which is what the article is discussing, and what I agreed with. But keeping drugs away from kids (a good thing) was being mixed up with a general anti-drugs message which I didn't like and which may prove counterproductive in the same way the extreme view put around in the US about no sex before marriage just didn't work. There was a case in the UK a few years ago of a man who allowed his kids and their mates to smoke weed in his house. His reasoning was that they wee going to do it anyway so he'd prefer to have it happen somewhere safe and where he could monitor it. The judge didn't look kindly on that I recall. I'm really not sure where I stand on that either. [0] Not in my case I add, the kids around me were getting pissed, smoking, smoking mj, trying other stuff, I didn't.