There is very little in this article specific to knowledge held mostly by academic historians. If you are familiar with the general left-coast stance and arguments around drugs, which is popular on HN, then there won't be much in this article that's new to you.
It also makes claims like
> drugs are not either “good” or “bad.” All drugs can be both “good” and “bad” in their interaction with humans"
This can said about "guns" too, but these sorts of cliches won't be very illuminating for thoughtful people.
It also makes claims like
> drugs are not either “good” or “bad.” All drugs can be both “good” and “bad” in their interaction with humans"
This can said about "guns" too, but these sorts of cliches won't be very illuminating for thoughtful people.