5 ms·

Drug scheduling is complete bullshit and is backed by politics and bronze age protestant beliefs, not science.

edwardbernays 1y ago
Fact check: true. It's also completely up to the head of the NHS, who is currently noted drug enthusiast RFK Jr. Here's hoping he'll legalize LSD and mescaline! He's used enough mescaline and spiked enough people's drinks with it, and also forced LSD on his pet birds, so at this point it's pure hypocrisy for him to keep it scheduled. Of course, we should expect everybody to have much better morals and sense about it than he's ever had.
- wbl 1y ago
  After the dead whale nothing should surprise me but what?
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  Is this really for HN? This is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations. I’m not sure what it adds to the discovery by this undergrad. I don’t know.
  - edwardbernays 1y ago
    "Robert F Kennedy Jr And The Dark Side Of The Dream" by Jerry Oppenheimer, page 54: > Back at the Kennedy compound before summer's end, away from Billings for the time being, he continued his bad behavior, feeding LSD to his parakeet, and forcing his brother David to trip on the psychedelic mescaline. Hallucinating, looking wide- eyed at his brother, he imagined the worst, screaming, "You're dying just like Daddy!" Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist. That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations." It is not piffle, it is written by a serious reported in a serious biographical piece. It is not a conspiracy theory, for it does not posit any particular conspiracy because typically those require more than one conspirator, and it is about as substantiated as many of the claims RFK Jr himself makes. Having now established the substance of the claim I made, I shall proceed to establish its relevance. RFK Jr has a long history with drugs, as do many politicians. RFK Jr is the head of the HHS. The secretary of the HHS can initiate proceedings to deschedule drugs. It is hypocritical, given his own admitted history with drugs, to continue to imprison people for it. For that matter, we have recently had Elon Musk (a notorious drug enthusiast) involved in the highest levels of government while actively doing copious amounts of illegal drugs. He should be in jail, like everyone else of lesser means who have been victimized by this senseless war on drugs. He won't be imprisoned, because he has money. It is the best evidence we have that the war on drugs is actually a war on the poor. They don't care about drugs, or they'd enforce drug law evenly. Joe Rogan, a self-admitted fan of many schedule 1 hallucinogens, remains a free man in the proto-christian-nationalist state of Texas. It is hypocrisy. It is time to end this war on drugs and move towards a sensible drug policy that is fair for all people and respects our basic freedoms. So, yes, it is for HN, thank you.
    - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
      > Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist. > That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations." [Citation Needed] You're idea of what constitutes a refutation is, and I mean this as nicely as possible, pretty ridiculous.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - rixed 1y ago
        To me, the refutation looks significantly more substantiated than the charges.
        dinkumthinkum 1y ago
        Then, this is a good opportunity to learn more about good arguments. The supposed "refutation" amounted to "the person that wrote a tabloid biography is credible because I say he is. There, now that I have proven his credibility ..." I mean, you can't actually be serious.
        edwardbernays 1y ago
        Your initial rebuttal was "this is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and baseless accusations." It is not piffle. It is not a conspiracy theory, because no conspiracy was theorized about. It is not a baseless accusation, because I have a base for it. Yes, my refutation is more substantiated than your initial rebuttal. Cry about it. Substantiate your argument if you want it to be substantiated. Engage substantively if you want to be treated as doing such, "adult."
Amezarak 1y ago
I started at "bronze age Protestant" and chuckled. I know you of course weren't being that serious about the exact phrasing, but of course the Protestants didn't come around until the 1500s. What that phrase put into my mind was Pilgrims showing up in the Trojan war. :)
- dylan604 1y ago
  Now I'm imagining some skit for something like History of the Wolrd Pt 3
  - noitpmeder 1y ago
    Make the kickstarter and I'll donate
dinkumthinkum 1y ago
What are Bronze Age Protestant beliefs? I wasn’t aware that Protestants existed in the Bronze Age.
- edwardbernays 1y ago
  I wasn't aware people could act so credulously in the face of obvious hyperbole. Do you really, truly, believe this poster to be making a positive claim about when Protestants did or did not exist? If so, I weep for your social comprehension skills. Christian moralism is an antiquated, self-contradicting, socially regressive belief system that continues to plague humanity and politics to this day. If people want to believe in Sky Daddy on their own time then that's fine, we all need a way to cope our way through the horrors of living with other humans. Your capacity to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms, which are not granted by any imaginary deity. We should keep Yahweh (and every other unfalsifiable, immaterial, intelligence) out of the politics that govern mortal, material, extant humans. An omnipotent presence could surely argue for his own agenda in politics. It's baffling that so many narcissists believe themselves to be charged with the responsibility for advocating his agenda instead.
  - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
    Oh, save your weeping for my "social comprehension skills" are fine. I saw it less as hyperbole and more of pedestrian inability to make a real case and instead malign a pretty reasonable religion. This is a website often known for being pedantic about correctness and you're incredulity at see someone not accepting passive aggressive nonsense as a valid argument seems to say more about your social comprehension skills, to be perfectly honest. The fact that you repeatedly write "Sky Daddy" as some child on 4chan seems to also imply that you may not be aware of what kind of a site this is. I don't know. Even the meat of your argument is plainly pathetic and I meant that with no disrespect. The idea that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs, which is not to say such an argument would be correct, is sophomoric to the point that I think it may be a topic better left to adults.
    - 1y ago

Fact check: true. It's also completely up to the head of the NHS, who is currently noted drug enthusiast RFK Jr. Here's hoping he'll legalize LSD and mescaline! He's used enough mescaline and spiked enough people's drinks with it, and also forced LSD on his pet birds, so at this point it's pure hypocrisy for him to keep it scheduled. Of course, we should expect everybody to have much better morals and sense about it than he's ever had.

wbl 1y ago
After the dead whale nothing should surprise me but what?
dinkumthinkum 1y ago
Is this really for HN? This is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations. I’m not sure what it adds to the discovery by this undergrad. I don’t know.
- edwardbernays 1y ago
  "Robert F Kennedy Jr And The Dark Side Of The Dream" by Jerry Oppenheimer, page 54: > Back at the Kennedy compound before summer's end, away from Billings for the time being, he continued his bad behavior, feeding LSD to his parakeet, and forcing his brother David to trip on the psychedelic mescaline. Hallucinating, looking wide- eyed at his brother, he imagined the worst, screaming, "You're dying just like Daddy!" Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist. That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations." It is not piffle, it is written by a serious reported in a serious biographical piece. It is not a conspiracy theory, for it does not posit any particular conspiracy because typically those require more than one conspirator, and it is about as substantiated as many of the claims RFK Jr himself makes. Having now established the substance of the claim I made, I shall proceed to establish its relevance. RFK Jr has a long history with drugs, as do many politicians. RFK Jr is the head of the HHS. The secretary of the HHS can initiate proceedings to deschedule drugs. It is hypocritical, given his own admitted history with drugs, to continue to imprison people for it. For that matter, we have recently had Elon Musk (a notorious drug enthusiast) involved in the highest levels of government while actively doing copious amounts of illegal drugs. He should be in jail, like everyone else of lesser means who have been victimized by this senseless war on drugs. He won't be imprisoned, because he has money. It is the best evidence we have that the war on drugs is actually a war on the poor. They don't care about drugs, or they'd enforce drug law evenly. Joe Rogan, a self-admitted fan of many schedule 1 hallucinogens, remains a free man in the proto-christian-nationalist state of Texas. It is hypocrisy. It is time to end this war on drugs and move towards a sensible drug policy that is fair for all people and respects our basic freedoms. So, yes, it is for HN, thank you.
  - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
    > Jerry Oppenheimer is generally considered to be a credible biographer and journalist. > That takes care of the charge of "leftist piddle, conspiracy theory, and unsubstantiated allegations." [Citation Needed] You're idea of what constitutes a refutation is, and I mean this as nicely as possible, pretty ridiculous.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - rixed 1y ago
      To me, the refutation looks significantly more substantiated than the charges.
      - dinkumthinkum 1y ago
        Then, this is a good opportunity to learn more about good arguments. The supposed "refutation" amounted to "the person that wrote a tabloid biography is credible because I say he is. There, now that I have proven his credibility ..." I mean, you can't actually be serious.
        edwardbernays 1y ago
        Your initial rebuttal was "this is leftist piffle, conspiracy theory, and baseless accusations." It is not piffle. It is not a conspiracy theory, because no conspiracy was theorized about. It is not a baseless accusation, because I have a base for it. Yes, my refutation is more substantiated than your initial rebuttal. Cry about it. Substantiate your argument if you want it to be substantiated. Engage substantively if you want to be treated as doing such, "adult."

Amezarak 1y ago

I started at "bronze age Protestant" and chuckled. I know you of course weren't being that serious about the exact phrasing, but of course the Protestants didn't come around until the 1500s. What that phrase put into my mind was Pilgrims showing up in the Trojan war. :)

dylan604 1y ago
Now I'm imagining some skit for something like History of the Wolrd Pt 3
- noitpmeder 1y ago
  Make the kickstarter and I'll donate

dinkumthinkum 1y ago

What are Bronze Age Protestant beliefs? I wasn’t aware that Protestants existed in the Bronze Age.

edwardbernays 1y ago
I wasn't aware people could act so credulously in the face of obvious hyperbole. Do you really, truly, believe this poster to be making a positive claim about when Protestants did or did not exist? If so, I weep for your social comprehension skills. Christian moralism is an antiquated, self-contradicting, socially regressive belief system that continues to plague humanity and politics to this day. If people want to believe in Sky Daddy on their own time then that's fine, we all need a way to cope our way through the horrors of living with other humans. Your capacity to believe in Sky Daddy ends where it impinges on my freedoms, which are not granted by any imaginary deity. We should keep Yahweh (and every other unfalsifiable, immaterial, intelligence) out of the politics that govern mortal, material, extant humans. An omnipotent presence could surely argue for his own agenda in politics. It's baffling that so many narcissists believe themselves to be charged with the responsibility for advocating his agenda instead.
- dinkumthinkum 1y ago
  Oh, save your weeping for my "social comprehension skills" are fine. I saw it less as hyperbole and more of pedestrian inability to make a real case and instead malign a pretty reasonable religion. This is a website often known for being pedantic about correctness and you're incredulity at see someone not accepting passive aggressive nonsense as a valid argument seems to say more about your social comprehension skills, to be perfectly honest. The fact that you repeatedly write "Sky Daddy" as some child on 4chan seems to also imply that you may not be aware of what kind of a site this is. I don't know. Even the meat of your argument is plainly pathetic and I meant that with no disrespect. The idea that no one can possibly make a credible argument against complete legalization of drugs, which is not to say such an argument would be correct, is sophomoric to the point that I think it may be a topic better left to adults.
  - 1y ago