6 ms·
I will never understand how HN manages to be so (maybe relatively) anti-drug, even in a latent fashion on this topic. I do, not, understand this sentiment. For
by drivebyacct2 15y ago
I will never understand how HN manages to be so (maybe relatively) anti-drug, even in a latent fashion on this topic. I do, not, understand this sentiment. For all of the things that HN does not take at face value, there is a blind acceptance of the "drugs are evil" viewpoint espoused (often exclusively in the face of their own studies, dozens of times, over 20 years) by the United States Government.
Downvote within 3 minutes, immediate comments touting how evil and unhealthy they are (which for the majority of lower level drugs are simply untrue, but you wouldn't know that unless you thought for yourself and read the literature).
Maybe I should clarify, there is an unusually large amount of effort that seems to be exuded in terms of keeping others from taking drugs, either through culture, pressure or laws than I am used to expecting on HN.
- bbgm 15y agoThey may not be evil, but they aren't particularly good for you either
- garethsprice 15y agoYou could say the same about chocolate cake.
- dualogy 15y agoSugar, you're right. Natural organic unsweetened dark chocolate "in moderation"? No concerns, antioxidant, aphrodisiac etc. pp.
- nate_meurer 15y agoTo what drugs are you referring, exactly? And what does "particularly good" mean? The whole point of the article is Jobs' claim that some experience with hallucinogens was, in fact, particularly good for him.
- ldh 15y agoAll illegal drugs are not equivalent simply because they happen to be currently illegal. Some of them aren't even particularly bad for you.
- felipemnoa 15y agoMaybe because is better to be safe than sorry? The fact is that there are a lot of people whose life is very publicly destroyed by drugs.
- drivebyacct2 15y agoWhat? And there are a lot of peoples' lives destroyed by greed. Does that mean you don't seek to make money? A greater percentage of water drinks drown than marijuana/lsd/mushroom users die from marijuana/etc usage. (As in, no one dies from them.)
- felipemnoa 15y agoThat is a logical fallacy.
- nate_meurer 15y agoHow is that a fallacy? "Better safe than sorry" is a platitude that can be used against any activity that entails some degree of risk.
- felipemnoa 15y agoGreed is not illegal and as long as you do not abuse it just like with alcohol, driving, etc. etc. You should be OK. You could say similar things about some drugs, some argue, unfortunately they are illegal, they can land you in jail, and they support a drug cartel. >>"Better safe than sorry" is a platitude that can be used against any activity that entails some degree of risk. But I wasn't using it for anything. I was using it for this specific case of doing illegal drugs. And mine was just an opinion, obviously nobody can stop you from doing what you want.
- nate_meurer 15y agoYes, I can see that you picked this specific case to apply your platitude. Feel free to pick any number of other cases as well, completely at random if you wish, and your argument will propel them all with equal force.
- yaks_hairbrush 15y agoOne can easily be anti-drug while supporting legalization. I personally support legalization of more drugs, but I'm not going to do them myself and I'm going to do what I can to keep my kid off them.
- garethsprice 15y agoAre the downvotes just because the article is (another) hack job fluff article with a tenuous link to Steve Jobs, or because people like HN for tech news and not the same arguments about politics/religion/morality that make Internet forums so homogenous and boring? All the comments here are heavily skewed towards legalization/tolerance of drug use (at worst, outright indifference) so what gives you the impression that HN "blindly accepts the 'drugs are evil' viewpoint"? (Personal opinion: Legalize and tax the lot, treat addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one.)
- drivebyacct2 15y agoI don't know, you're possibly right. I think the influence (or lack there of) of LSD on Steve Jobs as mildly interesting. I think creativity and ingenuity is undervalued in the industry that HN caters to, but I understand the sentiment that this article or even my comment might be off-topic and that's fine. On this post and (more) on other SteveJobs/LSD posts over the last year, I've seen people nearly talk about marijuana as if it is the destroyer of worlds, which I don't think any reputable scientist has possibly ever endorsed, yet people are scared and hide in their bunkers because they're never tried, done any research on their own, and just take the "AboveTheInfluence" ads at face value.
- rick888 15y ago"I've seen people nearly talk about marijuana as if it is the destroyer of worlds, which I don't think any reputable scientist has possibly ever endorsed" Are you denying the negative effects drugs have on many people? Pot may not have many effects on physical health, but it certainly does on mental health. Many people I know that smoke pot have almost no ambition. Pot becomes almost like a second girlfriend. Everything in life revolves around getting money to smoke more pot. I've seen this happen with way too many people to think that it's a unique case. But, it actually helps me, because it just means less competition in the workforce. "yet people are scared and hide in their bunkers because they're never tried, done any research on their own, and just take the "AboveTheInfluence" ads at face value" How about the people that know how bad it is and just don't agree with the sentiment that it's good for you?
- bluedanieru 15y agoI've never gotten that impression. HN is generally fiercely libertarian, often to a fault, and that hardly suggests an anti-drug sentiment. There is probably not a single actively contributing user who would support the death penalty for repeat drug offenders, for example, yet such people are not hard to find in the general population.
- emp_ 15y agoI think the shadow of addiction is the real concern for most, more than the drug or their effects while "on it".
- tptacek 15y agoIt seems plain to me that drug opinion on HN ranges from "don't care" to "aggressively advocating legalization". Are you sure you're not just spoiling for a fight? (It's ok; we all get bored sometimes). Your comment captures nicely one of the things I hate most about out-of-place political stories on HN. There isn't enough diversity of opinion here to have a real debate, so basically what we get is a competition of who can be the most ardently in favor of the idea. (I'm "don't care" leaning to "legalize because prohibition is expensive", for whatever that's worth to you). I flagged this stupid article, by the way. What Greenwald says here he could have said at any time during the last 10 years. He's using the tragic death of a public figure as an excuse to suck all the oxygen out of the room and replace it with something else. This is bad, tactless writing period, not just a poor fit for HN.
- drivebyacct2 15y agoAfter coming back to this after a couple hours, I realize that I may have misinterpreted what appears to be a vocal minority based on comments that I'm seeing (rather annoyingly actually) buried.
- Alex3917 15y ago"He's using the tragic death of a public figure as an excuse to suck all the oxygen out of the room and replace it with something else." The problem is that the fact that Steve Jobs even is a public figure is due mostly to random luck, that is he wasn't one of the people who got sent to prison for 10+ years for possession or whatever.
- billpg 15y agoPersonally... A. Don't do any dangerous drugs, except under a doctor's guidence. B. I don't want anyone who breaks rule A to be jailed.