4 ms·

I know hundreds of high-functioning drug users, and know that sometimes illegal drugs can be beneficial. But also have many friends and family who were killed

by andyl 12y ago

I know hundreds of high-functioning drug users, and know that sometimes illegal drugs can be beneficial. But also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs - the #1 cause of death amongst my peers. More than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also many more that are alive but seriously damaged. Drug addiction creates second-hand victims, the parents/children/siblings/family. Unbelievably painful. The town I grew up in was torn apart by drugs and gangs. Watch 'The Wire' - art imitating life. The costs of drugs are truly staggering. Seems I'm the lone person who agrees with @avodonosov. The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. At this point many of you are reaching for the downvote button. :-) Sorry but - yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside!

rosser 12y ago
Please consider that at least some of the downvotes you're receiving may have more to do with your claim that you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome" on HN than with the positions, themselves. Delusions of persecution aren't conducive to the kind of discourse we're trying to maintain here. EDIT: It's also fallacious to lump all "drugs" together under the same banner. I'm very skeptical that psychedelics factor significantly into drug-related gang violence and trafficking. I also very much doubt that there are very many LSD or psilocybin "addicts" around. This article was about legitimate scientific exploration of a repeatedly claimed benefit of psychedelics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gangs, violence, trafficking, or addiction. As such, those issues are tangential at best, and probably also diversionary and specious.
- andyl 12y ago
  > very much doubt that there are very many LSD "addicts" around My cousin - big LSD user - messed up his brain function. After that: drooling/voices/psychosis. Years of hell for his parents. Hell is an understatement. He died at a rehab / halfway house - killed by a fellow resident - stabbed in the heart with a butcher knife. My childhood friend - took LSD/psychedelics in Japan & never came out of it. Bumbling around in the streets naked, didn't know his name etc. His parents had to go bring him home. 20 years later he lives with them still, can't hold a job, can't handle a relationship, doesn't even come out of the house. Me and tons of others took psychedelics with no side effects - it works that way for most people. But when it goes wrong, the downside can be staggering. > re: you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome" If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself.
  - rosser 12y ago
    If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself. I'll certainly concede that HN doesn't tend to respond well to a position of, "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?" I submit that has more to do with that being a hopelessly naïve stance than anything else. Sure, some drugs are bad. Sure, some drugs are bad for some people. Sure, some people probably shouldn't take any drugs at all. Going from that to blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical, and is very likely not to be a welcome notion in a community as broadly libertarian (note, small-l) in attitude as we "hackers" tend to be.
    - andyl 12y ago
      > blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical I said: > yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside! Nowhere in this discussion do I call for prohibition. Downvotes are given to the possibility that drugs can have a downside. Now who is sloppy and illogical?
itistoday2 12y ago
> But I also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs. Drugs are the #1 cause of death amongst my peers - killing more than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also know half-dozen more that are alive but seriously damaged. You might be confusing drugs and drug policy. Poor drug policy like the "War on Drugs" has killed millions, and is indeed a huge tragedy that needs to come to an end. Edit: To whoever downvoted this comment: could you please reply to this comment with your concerns (instead of downvoting and walking away)?
dang 12y ago
> The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. What? That's not true at all.
- andyl 12y ago
  > not true at all. Be serious @dang - Hacker News mods and community are very strongly pro-drug. Own it! Your warning to @avodonosov: > please stop re-litigating the presence of <drug> stories on Hacker News. You're creating a gigantic off-topic diversion. Anti-drug views on HN are litigating/vendetta/off-topic/divisive. Pro-drug views on HN are exciting/substantive/interesting. By your own words! :-)
  - dang 12y ago
    There's a strong temptation on HN to see the community and perhaps also the mods as lined up against oneself on controversial issues. For the sake of interesting discussion—and, I can add from experience, one's own well-being—it's important to resist this. Such perceptions are easily distorted by cognitive bias: enemies loom larger than friends, negative responses feel stronger than positive ones, you are more likely to notice what you dislike, and so on. No doubt the community does have more bias on some issues than others, but there's nearly always room for calm, substantive contrarian arguments. What there isn't room for is the frustrated comments people tend to post when they become convinced that the community is against them. That's the HN equivalent of going on tilt. Other users respond negatively to the lashing-out aspect, which then gets interpreted as "hostility to my views", "groupthink", and so on. When someone knows a truth that others don't, arguing this way actually discredits that truth, because it gives others a fresh reason to reject it. As for the moderators, we try as hard as we know how not to let our personal views influence moderation activity, and to keep the latter strictly procedural. I know we don't do that perfectly, but one improves with practice, and we get a lot of practice. p.s. I'm sorry about your cousin and your friend. I'd feel intensely too in your position.
caseydurfee 12y ago
The Wire was about psychedelics?

by andyl 12y ago

rosser 12y ago

Please consider that at least some of the downvotes you're receiving may have more to do with your claim that you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome" on HN than with the positions, themselves. Delusions of persecution aren't conducive to the kind of discourse we're trying to maintain here. EDIT: It's also fallacious to lump all "drugs" together under the same banner. I'm very skeptical that psychedelics factor significantly into drug-related gang violence and trafficking. I also very much doubt that there are very many LSD or psilocybin "addicts" around. This article was about legitimate scientific exploration of a repeatedly claimed benefit of psychedelics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gangs, violence, trafficking, or addiction. As such, those issues are tangential at best, and probably also diversionary and specious.

andyl 12y ago
> very much doubt that there are very many LSD "addicts" around My cousin - big LSD user - messed up his brain function. After that: drooling/voices/psychosis. Years of hell for his parents. Hell is an understatement. He died at a rehab / halfway house - killed by a fellow resident - stabbed in the heart with a butcher knife. My childhood friend - took LSD/psychedelics in Japan & never came out of it. Bumbling around in the streets naked, didn't know his name etc. His parents had to go bring him home. 20 years later he lives with them still, can't hold a job, can't handle a relationship, doesn't even come out of the house. Me and tons of others took psychedelics with no side effects - it works that way for most people. But when it goes wrong, the downside can be staggering. > re: you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome" If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself.
- rosser 12y ago
  If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself. I'll certainly concede that HN doesn't tend to respond well to a position of, "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?" I submit that has more to do with that being a hopelessly naïve stance than anything else. Sure, some drugs are bad. Sure, some drugs are bad for some people. Sure, some people probably shouldn't take any drugs at all. Going from that to blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical, and is very likely not to be a welcome notion in a community as broadly libertarian (note, small-l) in attitude as we "hackers" tend to be.
  - andyl 12y ago
    > blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical I said: > yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside! Nowhere in this discussion do I call for prohibition. Downvotes are given to the possibility that drugs can have a downside. Now who is sloppy and illogical?

itistoday2 12y ago

> But I also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs. Drugs are the #1 cause of death amongst my peers - killing more than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also know half-dozen more that are alive but seriously damaged. You might be confusing drugs and drug policy. Poor drug policy like the "War on Drugs" has killed millions, and is indeed a huge tragedy that needs to come to an end. Edit: To whoever downvoted this comment: could you please reply to this comment with your concerns (instead of downvoting and walking away)?

dang 12y ago

> The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. What? That's not true at all.

andyl 12y ago
> not true at all. Be serious @dang - Hacker News mods and community are very strongly pro-drug. Own it! Your warning to @avodonosov: > please stop re-litigating the presence of <drug> stories on Hacker News. You're creating a gigantic off-topic diversion. Anti-drug views on HN are litigating/vendetta/off-topic/divisive. Pro-drug views on HN are exciting/substantive/interesting. By your own words! :-)
- dang 12y ago
  There's a strong temptation on HN to see the community and perhaps also the mods as lined up against oneself on controversial issues. For the sake of interesting discussion—and, I can add from experience, one's own well-being—it's important to resist this. Such perceptions are easily distorted by cognitive bias: enemies loom larger than friends, negative responses feel stronger than positive ones, you are more likely to notice what you dislike, and so on. No doubt the community does have more bias on some issues than others, but there's nearly always room for calm, substantive contrarian arguments. What there isn't room for is the frustrated comments people tend to post when they become convinced that the community is against them. That's the HN equivalent of going on tilt. Other users respond negatively to the lashing-out aspect, which then gets interpreted as "hostility to my views", "groupthink", and so on. When someone knows a truth that others don't, arguing this way actually discredits that truth, because it gives others a fresh reason to reject it. As for the moderators, we try as hard as we know how not to let our personal views influence moderation activity, and to keep the latter strictly procedural. I know we don't do that perfectly, but one improves with practice, and we get a lot of practice. p.s. I'm sorry about your cousin and your friend. I'd feel intensely too in your position.

caseydurfee 12y ago

The Wire was about psychedelics?