Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 144 posts

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#81

Post by robotbikes »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #77
V-2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the famous Leary vs. Lettvin debate (1967): https://youtu.be/Gq3Fp-xp0l0 For the brochure version: http://www.swt.org/oshare/Lettvin-Leary/Lettvin-Leary-LSD-De... Leary's sitting in the lotus position was always a red flag to me ;) I don't advocate a prohibition at all, but I think there's something wrong with attempting to conceive some sort of an ideology to back up the drug use. Lettvin's point…

Speaking of Leary, this quote from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas [1] basically sums up my opinion and sentiment above: > All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours, too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create... > ...a generation of permanent crippl…

But LSD was also used heavily by people who went on to become the visionaries of the computer revolution that we are all utilizing to discuss this topic. Steve Jobs being one of the most notable but there were others documented in the book what the domouse said https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/725789.What_the_Dormouse...

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#82

Post by tdb7893 »

merinowool wrote: post #27
tranchms wrote: post #13

“LSD comes from bacteria.” This is wrong. LSD is synthesized from ergot, a fungus that grows on rye. An oversight like this throws the authors entire credibility into question. Know your subject matter.

I wonder if all media participate in such disinformation on purpose...

Most of the mistakes are pretty simple errors and with how many news articles are printed each day it would be weird not to have errors like this (also it's essentially impossible hundreds of journalists could be communicating with each other in some grand conspiracy, that would unravel insanely fast). It's the same as most software bugs are legitimate errors, there have been purposeful ones but most aren't.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#83

Post by throwaway413 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #68
throwaway98371 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in a really conservative, deeply religious (Protestant Christian) family. My parents loved me and did their best to raise me according to their beliefs, but their beliefs were both absurdly strict and also ridiculously unsupportable by the scientific evidence that, as a book- and science-obsessed teenager, I was absorbing at a rapid pace. Given that I was quickly disbelieving everything I had been raised to…

I didn’t excuse my parents behavior just because it came from “love”. They didn’t know any better, but they also refused my attempts to educate them multiple times. To me, that says their ego and need to assume things about their “afterlife” was more important than pursuing valid data and analysis, not a good trait in my opinion.

What about your ego telling you that you’re any more right than they are? How do you know you’re right and your kids won’t be saying the same thing? Just some food for thought.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#84

Post by wepple »

grosjona wrote: post #32

Drugs desensitise people to life's "regular highs" which makes them seek out stronger, more stimulating experiences in their lives, which makes them want more money (since these experiences tend to be expensive), which makes people more competitive in the workplace/marketplace (and more likely to be dishonest and prioritise short term gains)... This makes it harder for non-drug-users to compete in the workplace/marke…

There seems to be a fairly long chain of leaps in logic in this argument.

Take marijuana or alcohol for example, two of the most popular recreational drugs. You’re absolutely convinced that a Saturday night booze bender or big smoke up will drive them to work harder on Monday because they had such a rush?

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#85

Post by JUDAS »

grosjona wrote: post #32

Drugs desensitise people to life's "regular highs" which makes them seek out stronger, more stimulating experiences in their lives, which makes them want more money (since these experiences tend to be expensive), which makes people more competitive in the workplace/marketplace (and more likely to be dishonest and prioritise short term gains)... This makes it harder for non-drug-users to compete in the workplace/marke…

There is some merit here.

Aside from sports which you mentioned, psychedelics and amphetamines especially are used by creatives. Writers, illustrators, directors, musicians and so on. Someone who would be "clean" would be at an ungodly disadvantage.

Although with altruism and psychedelics specifically, I would have to disagree strongly, as they actually tend to almost bestow empathy upon people who use them, that is to say that, the effect of increase in empathy is so strong that it seems as if people around and including the person who's had the experience are devoid of it by comparison. This increase in sensitivity if anything would in turn lend itself to altruism.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#86

Post by merinowool »

nine_k wrote: post #43
merinowool wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope one day those who push war on drugs are recognised for the damage they have caused and all the deception that is going on will be exposed and heads will roll.

Did any heads roll when The Prohibition was finally considered a failure?

Sadly, no

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#87

Post by pmoriarty »

dqv wrote: post #65
jdietrich wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a rather worrying trend of psychedelics being "sold" as a safe panacea. If you believe the cheerleaders, psychedelics are powerful enough to rapidly cure mental illness and facilitate profoundly positive personality changes, but have only trivial side-effects. That doesn't seem particularly plausible to me - there aren't many medicines that are both very potent and very safe. The stereotype of the burned-out…

> HPPD is almost certainly a real disorder. I just looked that up and have assumed it was normal for most of my life. Sometime around when I was 3-5 years old, I was laying in bed, looking up up at the wall and noticed this visual noise. I wondered about it and resolved that "that's just how it is." I would also close my eyes and let that fuzz "set in" and see beautiful fire works and replay music in my head. Maybe j…

I am no neurologist, but what you're describing sounds more like Prisoner's cinema[1] or some sort of entoptic phenomenon[2] rather than HPPD.

HPPD happens with the eyes open, in the light, and is usually more pronounced than something like a floater[3] (which can also be seen in the lights, with the eyes open).

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_cinema

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entoptic_phenomenon

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#88

Post by flomble »

headsoup wrote: post #23

Drugs should not be criminalised. They should be regulated. There's no fundamental reason that drugs are any worse than alcohol except social stigma and manipulation. A most bizarre example imo is Portugal. It is a fine-able offense to carry drugs (up to 10 days), but not criminal. Yet it is criminal to produce or distribute drugs. How does that work if consumption of the end product is not criminal. It's like it mus…

Portugal is constrained by international conventions on drug policy (largely pushed by the United States). Legalizing the production or distribution of drugs would engender serious adverse consequences, so they've tiptoed as far up to the line as they can without breaking the rules that bind them. While their policy relieves harm associated with addiction, it can't undermine the incentives for the criminal drug trade because absurd conventions prohibit them from doing so.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#89

Post by empath75 »

jdietrich wrote: post #19
abhiminator wrote: post #5

I'm totally on-board with opposition to the pointless 'War on Drugs,' but what I'm not cool with is when pundits and other public figures on the other side of the spectrum PUSH for its wide-adoption and integration into everyday lifestyle akin to alcohol -- like the article's author is doing here -- which I feel is equally detrimental because there have been many well documented cases of people succumbing to the spel…

There's a rather worrying trend of psychedelics being "sold" as a safe panacea. If you believe the cheerleaders, psychedelics are powerful enough to rapidly cure mental illness and facilitate profoundly positive personality changes, but have only trivial side-effects. That doesn't seem particularly plausible to me - there aren't many medicines that are both very potent and very safe. The stereotype of the burned-out…

Fwiw, I’ve done mdma a hundred times and lsd and mushrooms a few dozen times, haven’t don’t either in over a decade, and don’t drink, and I’m a perfectly well adjusted software engineer with a wife and two kids and a house in the suburbs. And I attribute the fact that I am a well adjusted person today to having done psychedelics in my 20s, because I was an absolute disaster as a human being coming out of high school with a lot of childhood trauma that I needed help dealing with.

Re: Why We Should Say Yes to Drugs

#90

Post by merinowool »

tdb7893 wrote: post #82
merinowool wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if all media participate in such disinformation on purpose...

Most of the mistakes are pretty simple errors and with how many news articles are printed each day it would be weird not to have errors like this (also it's essentially impossible hundreds of journalists could be communicating with each other in some grand conspiracy, that would unravel insanely fast). It's the same as most software bugs are legitimate errors, there have been purposeful ones but most aren't.

In some countries media are licensed, so they can't publish things against guidelines. They risk losing their license also it is easy to label such leak as conspiracy theory (term coined by the CIA by the way)
Post reply on HN