4 ms·
Hardly! He doesn't have to slink off anywhere, nor do I think he should. But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out
by dave_sullivan 13y ago
Hardly! He doesn't have to slink off anywhere, nor do I think he should.
But frankly, the convenience and timeliness of his argument is well worth pointing out. Speaking personally, I hold a special disdain in my heart for smart people that perpetuate the war on drugs for various reasons and then profess to stand for individual freedom.
In particular, the argument of not enough research, keep it illegal is the most insidious kind of argument because it sounds reasonable enough but inherently contains the opinion that we should keep jailing people until this research materializes. So yeah, when I get a chance to rub it in with someone like that, I take it. I guess that's petty, but so is jailing people for getting high.
- vehementi 13y agoYeah I agree with you. It is utterly implausible that he was not previously aware of every last thing he mentioned in the article. There's just no way. Oops, I ignored all of this evidence and all the worldwide recommendations of doctors prescribing it to patience this whole time? No, of course not. He knew full well - probably on his initial pass of the data a decade ago or whatever if he's at all competent - of all the things he "discovered" in this article. He merely sacrificed the health and comfort all of those people who could have benefited until now, in order to further his career.