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

The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

thoughtcatalog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 46 posts

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#31

Post by elp »

elefanten wrote: post #19

Complete tripe. The article doesn't even work up the guts to make the claim that's made in the headline. And even in what it actually says, it goes too far by claiming the government was trying to "purposely" harm the lungs of pot smokers. The only argument supported by the evidence is that the government was trying to kill weed crops as an early drug war tactic, which backfired because it wasn't killing enough of th…

So much this. From Wikipedia:

"Whether any injury came about due to the inhalation of paraquat-contaminated marijuana is uncertain. A 1995 study found that "no lung or other injury in cannabis users has ever been attributed to paraquat contamination". Also a United States Environmental Protection Agency manual states: "... toxic effects caused by this mechanism have been either very rare or nonexistent. Most paraquat that contaminates cannabis is pyrolyzed during smoking to dipyridyl, which is a product of combustion of the leaf material itself (including cannabis) and presents little toxic hazard."

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#32

Post by avalonpark »

Prestige Groups new pre-launch project - Prestige City Avalon Park - Prestige Avalon Park is a prodigious residential setup with 1BHK, 2BHK, 2.5 BHK and 3 BHK apartments spread across 40 Acres located at Sarjapur Road near Sarjapur Road of East Bangalore.

Visit : https://www.prestigecityavalonpark.in/

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#33

Post by hirako2000 »

kook_throwaway wrote: post #23
hirako2000 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are brilliant. The disinformation has been so effective it created zealots constantly defending the side of pharmaceuticals, government measures, systemic control of movement and ultimately even how to treat our own health. Always using reverse accusations, especially when proven wrong or suddenly disappear, refuse to continue the argumentation, or minimise the gravity of their falsehood.

The gravity of the falsehood is key to understanding. We have seen an incredible growth of authoritarianism, from the near daily 'Simon says' mandate changes, lockdowns, increased surveillance, destruction of small business, 12 trillion dollars printed, and coerced administration of a novel gene therapy. You have no choice but to be right with all of that on your shoulders, that's a lot to weigh down a conscience if…

We've had surveillance since forever, the destruction of small businesses also isn't new, printing far too much currency has been the new normal for decades, coerced authorities and groups using corruption to gain grounds have been investigated and often sentenced. If consciousness need to kick back into these realities, we got even more educational work to do then.

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#34

Post by throwawaylinux »

flyingcircus3 wrote: post #12
postpawl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine is working. Not everything the government and pharmaceutical companies do is bad.

This is the problem with purveyors of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They don't need logical consistency. They don't need to explain themselves, they don't even need a central point to their arguments. They aren't trying to prove anything, only to plant the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Are you calling me a purveyor of FUD because I suggested that governments and corporations are not to be implicitly trusted?

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#35

Post by orwin »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #29
dngray wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. They're also not produced by one single company, we've got pfizer, moderna and a number of others working independently over international borders. Not only that there's not exactly much sense in having many people die of a preventable disease. That costs government both in reduced productivity and healthcare. It also encourages har…

You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. Never happened in anything related to the Middle East, South America, India, the Gulf of Mexico, tobacco, climate change, asbestos, banking bailouts, subprime mortgages, or anything else. Now let's all go bash the first fascist we find daring to question our benevolent corporate-government ov…

I find you way too harsh.

Yes, you are right, cartels have existed, and still exist. But do you think France, China, Russia would just agree to everything a supposed US health cartel say?

And the researchers in public labs, do you think they would agree to this cartel? I mean, they are the one who sounded the alerts on: tobacco, neonicotinoids, sugar?

Maybe everyone in the world is on it. I find it unlikely myself, but its OK to believe it.

And you are not a fascist for refusing the vaccine :/

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#36

Post by flyingcircus3 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #34
flyingcircus3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the problem with purveyors of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They don't need logical consistency. They don't need to explain themselves, they don't even need a central point to their arguments. They aren't trying to prove anything, only to plant the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Are you calling me a purveyor of FUD because I suggested that governments and corporations are not to be implicitly trusted?

No, I'm calling you one because you've played six degrees of vaccine misinformation on an article about the US government using herbicide. You haven't made any defensible claims, you've just injected uncertainty for uncertainty's sake.

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#37

Post by orwin »

kook_throwaway wrote: post #25
flyingcircus3 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's complete the sentence of your quote and see who's playing word games: "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicin…

I never said it altered DNA, that was the straw man the poster who replied to me built.

Can you agree that your original response with half the quote might have been a bit dishonest? And if you don't think so, why not quoting the entire phrase?

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#38

Post by throwawaylinux »

flyingcircus3 wrote: post #36
throwawaylinux wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you calling me a purveyor of FUD because I suggested that governments and corporations are not to be implicitly trusted?

No, I'm calling you one because you've played six degrees of vaccine misinformation on an article about the US government using herbicide. You haven't made any defensible claims, you've just injected uncertainty for uncertainty's sake.

No I haven't, you must have misread.

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#39

Post by throwawaylinux »

orwin wrote: post #35
throwawaylinux wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. Never happened in anything related to the Middle East, South America, India, the Gulf of Mexico, tobacco, climate change, asbestos, banking bailouts, subprime mortgages, or anything else. Now let's all go bash the first fascist we find daring to question our benevolent corporate-government ov…

I find you way too harsh. Yes, you are right, cartels have existed, and still exist. But do you think France, China, Russia would just agree to everything a supposed US health cartel say? And the researchers in public labs, do you think they would agree to this cartel? I mean, they are the one who sounded the alerts on: tobacco, neonicotinoids, sugar? Maybe everyone in the world is on it. I find it unlikely myself, b…

I think multiple governments have certainly colluded to cover things up and perpetuate lies many many times.

If you aren't concerned about undue influence of Russia or China on people within the US government, let alone the collusion between western nations such as five eyes countries, then I don't know what to say.

I'm not sure what you're talking about researchers in public labs or what you think exactly I'm alleging here. It's not anything about the validity of scientific theories and data gathered about covid and vaccines. I never said anything at all about vaccines until right now, in fact.

Re: The US Government tried to kill weed smokers with a toxic chemical in the 1980s

#40

Post by throwawaylinux »

orwin wrote: post #37
kook_throwaway wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it altered DNA, that was the straw man the poster who replied to me built.

Can you agree that your original response with half the quote might have been a bit dishonest? And if you don't think so, why not quoting the entire phrase?

>>> a novel gene therapy

>> these are not in any way "gene therapy."

> "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA."

Are we reading the same thing? The misinformation and dishonest strawman argument came from the second poster. One might take other issues with kook_throwaway's comment, but what's wrong with that?

Post reply on HN