6 ms·

It's definitely an interesting article, but I think here it's really worth to click around a bit and get aware of the context it's posted in. The site it's pub

by xg15 4y ago

It's definitely an interesting article, but I think here it's really worth to click around a bit and get aware of the context it's posted in. The site it's published on, Filter Magazine, describes itself [1]: > Our mission is to advocate through journalism for rational and compassionate approaches to drug use, drug policy and human rights. Sponsors include [2] Juul Labs, Phillip Morris International, The American Vaping Association and Knowledge Action Change (see below). The author of the article herself is a grantee of Knowledge Action Change [3]. KAC describes itself [4] as an advocacy organization for "tobacco harm reduction" which basically means promoting "alternative" tobacco products such as vapes. [5] None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased. I think it makes a difference that the author is not some random person who reflects about her drug use growing up and comes to the conclusion that it actually had lasting positive effects - but someone who actively lobbies for drug use as part of her job. [1] https://filtermag.org/about-filter/amp/ https://filtermag.org/about-filter/amp/ [2] https://filtermag.org/about-the-influence-foundation/amp/ https://filtermag.org/about-the-influence-foundation/amp/ [3] https://filtermag.org/author/kiran-sidhu/amp/ https://filtermag.org/author/kiran-sidhu/amp/ [4] https://kachange.eu/#about-us https://kachange.eu/#about-us [5] https://thrsp.net/introduction-to-the-thrsp/ https://thrsp.net/introduction-to-the-thrsp/

_a_a_a_ 4y ago
Thank you. Bias always needs a revealing.
garbagetime 4y ago
> it is definitely not unbiased. Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.
- ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
  Are Philip morris getting into the ecstasy business? Seems unlikely.
  - throw_pm23 4y ago
    No but if more harmful things get normalised, then users of their product can feel less guilty. It's a variation on the "commoditize your complement" pattern. (before someone says: "actually x is less harmful than y", I mean their perception by the general public)
    - haswell 4y ago
      Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy? I was going to make the actual harm comment before your edit, but I still wonder about the premise.
      - throw_pm23 4y ago
        I assume most parents would be less concerned by cigarette-use, but attitudes may differ from one country to the other.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy? Obviously so?
        haswell 4y ago
        Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this? This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.
        coldtea 4y ago
        I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general". Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...
- b4je7d7wb 4y ago
  That's perhaps a bit pendatic. Maybe vested interest would be a more accurate term, but the idea is quite clear from context.
- ornornor 4y ago
  > A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing. yeah right.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  Yes, a person peddling a harmful substance donates to making a broader set of harmful substances more acceptable.
  - dustymcp 4y ago
    I agree all those cheseburgers French fries and cheese platters need to go!
- wallscratch 4y ago
  That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings. In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...
s1artibartfast 4y ago
Im not sure what the difference is between bias, perspective, and belief in this context. I believe in tobacco and drug harm reduction. Am I biased? If I write an article, do I become biased? If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased? You could say the same thing about anything anyone believes.
- xg15 4y ago
  > If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased? Lol. Yes, of course you do. If nothing else then for the fact that suddenly, what you write in your articles can directly influence the relationship you have with your superiors, could get you fired or could anger the sponsors of your advocacy organization and effect the wellbeing of the entire organisation.
- idopmstuff 4y ago
  Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience. That said, I think bias is generally only harmful when it's concealed from people. In this article, which is unabashedly and clearly pro-drugs, I don't see the harm in bias - people can evaluate it freely and judge accordingly.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality" per wikipedia: >Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. If you are correct, you are not biased.
sneak 4y ago
The article is about MDMA, not nicotine.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  The further the legal boundaries are in the ard drug direction, the further they are from regulating the cigaret market which is currently (and rightfully) under attack in some countries (cf new zeland, russia..)
BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased. Who in their right mind would read this piece and think it unbiased? It is absolutely and unapologetically biased. This isn't journalism. It's closer to an op-ed, and is one person's account of their experiences. Did you really think you needed to put in the effort to engage in this ad hominem? That readers would be so ignorant as to see this piece as one of objective, factual journalism when it so clearly isn't?

by xg15 4y ago

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

Thank you. Bias always needs a revealing.

garbagetime 4y ago

> it is definitely not unbiased. Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

ed_elliott_asc 4y ago
Are Philip morris getting into the ecstasy business? Seems unlikely.
- throw_pm23 4y ago
  No but if more harmful things get normalised, then users of their product can feel less guilty. It's a variation on the "commoditize your complement" pattern. (before someone says: "actually x is less harmful than y", I mean their perception by the general public)
  - haswell 4y ago
    Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy? I was going to make the actual harm comment before your edit, but I still wonder about the premise.
    - throw_pm23 4y ago
      I assume most parents would be less concerned by cigarette-use, but attitudes may differ from one country to the other.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy? Obviously so?
      - haswell 4y ago
        Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this? This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.
        coldtea 4y ago
        I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general". Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...
b4je7d7wb 4y ago
That's perhaps a bit pendatic. Maybe vested interest would be a more accurate term, but the idea is quite clear from context.
ornornor 4y ago
> A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing. yeah right.
throw_pm23 4y ago
Yes, a person peddling a harmful substance donates to making a broader set of harmful substances more acceptable.
- dustymcp 4y ago
  I agree all those cheseburgers French fries and cheese platters need to go!
wallscratch 4y ago
That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.
coldtea 4y ago
Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings. In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Im not sure what the difference is between bias, perspective, and belief in this context. I believe in tobacco and drug harm reduction. Am I biased? If I write an article, do I become biased? If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased? You could say the same thing about anything anyone believes.

xg15 4y ago
> If I work for an advocacy group, do I become biased? Lol. Yes, of course you do. If nothing else then for the fact that suddenly, what you write in your articles can directly influence the relationship you have with your superiors, could get you fired or could anger the sponsors of your advocacy organization and effect the wellbeing of the entire organisation.
idopmstuff 4y ago
Everybody's biased in everything all the time to some degree or other - that's just part of the human experience. That said, I think bias is generally only harmful when it's concealed from people. In this article, which is unabashedly and clearly pro-drugs, I don't see the harm in bias - people can evaluate it freely and judge accordingly.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  The bias is not 'pro drugs', the bias is 'why am I expressing pro drugs to you'
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Is it? I thought bias was "I have a distorted view of reality" per wikipedia: >Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair. Biases can be innate or learned. People may develop biases for or against an individual, a group, or a belief.[1] In science and engineering, a bias is a systematic error. If you are correct, you are not biased.

sneak 4y ago

The article is about MDMA, not nicotine.

davidguetta 4y ago
The further the legal boundaries are in the ard drug direction, the further they are from regulating the cigaret market which is currently (and rightfully) under attack in some countries (cf new zeland, russia..)

BaseballPhysics 4y ago

> None of this means that the article is wrong, but it is definitely not unbiased. Who in their right mind would read this piece and think it unbiased? It is absolutely and unapologetically biased. This isn't journalism. It's closer to an op-ed, and is one person's account of their experiences. Did you really think you needed to put in the effort to engage in this ad hominem? That readers would be so ignorant as to see this piece as one of objective, factual journalism when it so clearly isn't?