Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Steve Jobs, LSD and Drug Freedom (salon.com)
315 points by spking on Oct 11, 2011 | hide | past | web | favorite | 159 comments



Incidentally, despite the oft quoted, "Bill Gates would be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once", Bill Gates basically did admit to taking LSD in a 1994 interview:

PLAYBOY: Ever take LSD?

GATES: My errant youth ended a long time ago.

PLAYBOY: What does that mean?

GATES: That means there were things I did under the age of 25 that I ended up not doing subsequently.

PLAYBOY: One LSD story involved you staring at a table and thinking the corner was going to plunge into your eye.

GATES: [Smiles]

PLAYBOY: Ah, a glimmer of recognition.

GATES: That was on the other side of that boundary. The young mind can deal with certain kinds of gooping around that I don't think at this age I could. I don't think you're as capable of handling lack of sleep or whatever challenges you throw at your body as you get older. However, I never missed a day of work.

http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/billgates/l/blbillgatesi...


Incidentally, despite the oft quoted, "Bill Gates would be a broader guy if he had dropped acid once", Bill Gates basically did admit to taking LSD in a 1994 interview:

As with most drugs, those who don't wear the uniform of the subculture associated the drug (or at least strongly show the personality traits their users like to attribute to the drug) are assumed to never have done them.


The reverse is true, as well. My favorite 'after work' pullover in cool weather is a Baja hoodie.

Found out a few days ago this is garb that is associated with stoners at the high school: it's nickname is 'drug rug'.

I now understand the stink eye the school cop used to give me. And why a guy at a truck stop assumed that I - a middle-aged white guy with three kids in tow - might have something illegal he needed to see him through his overnight run.


I've never done LSD but the stories I hear from people I have are sometimes hillarious.

I heard one where a guy thought he was a glass of orange juice, and was terrified of laying down b/c he was afraid he'd pour himself out.

Another was a bit less creative but no less scary - a giant spider eating his leg from the foot up.

I have to say, neither is particularly something I want to experience...


>I heard one where a guy thought he was a glass of orange juice, and was terrified of laying down b/c he was afraid he'd pour himself out.

That is one of the original pieces of anti-LSD mythology, along with "I heard about this guy who thought he could fly, so he jumped off a building." The story you quote usually ends with, "and then he fell over by accident and he died of a heart attack."

This is why you are being downvoted.


Haha, thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. Never occured to me to Snopes something I heard IRL instead of via silly email forward. I feel so gullible now...

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/drugs/orange.asp


I've taken LSD and 'shrooms a few times, and while I can understand what Jobs is saying, I think he was wrong. I had mystical experiences where I thought I understood that the whole world was connected together, and I was connected to the world, and other deep insights. I think this was just brain-addled delusion, not any insight into how things really are.

That said, I fully support these things being legal, and (for people who aren't naturally anxious) trying them with a good "set" and "setting".


I think you may be missing the forest for the trees. My personal insight from psychedelics was that what I perceived as "reality" was simply wetware converting signals from my senses into perception. When something changes that perception (sometimes dramatically, like patterns on solid objects moving fluidly behind my hands or gazing at shimmering geometric rainbows etched into the walls) one understands that reality is just in your head. IMHO that's a powerful construct, especially for an optimist: it's easier to imagine changing the world when the world is so easily changeable in your head.


"It's easier to imagine changing the world when the world is so easily changeable in your head."

Yes.


I think it's a mistake to focus too much on the mystical "revelation" angle that some people use to frame the benefits of psychedelics. I have no trouble believing that the positive outcomes people get from psychadelics are real while rejecting the notion that there's some obscure mystical reality that's being tapped into.

I think the "brain-addled delusions" you describe can be appreciated as rare and useful shifts of your own perspective even if that's all they are. Sure, there's nothing supernatural about it, but you may still have valid insights which you wouldn't necessarily have arrived at during your morning commute.

Our mundane, day-to-day perspective on the world, on some level, is only distinguishable from "brain-addled delusion" because we're desensitized to it.


I don't disagree at all. As I said I think it may be worthwhile for some people to take LSD. It would be so much better if it were legal and we could take a serious look at how to reduce the harmful part of taking it, and also look at perhaps genetic or other factors which mean that some people really shouldn't be taking it.


I too have taken LSD. Microdots were prevalent circa 1995 in South Yorkshire, which were strong to the point of not being funny. However, I did manage to get my grubby little junkie mitts on a few paper trips which were a lot more pleasant.

My own personal view that it did change the way I look at the world in some strange and indescribable ways and the experiences made a large contribution to the person I am today, for better and for worse. I never had any grand epiphanies though, but I had some really good times.

I also had some truly horrible times which resulted in some pretty strange phobias that I'm only just starting to get over, but I wouldn't say they've had any noticeable affect on my life.

The moral of the story? There is no moral to this story.


You really put it accurately. When I came to psychedelics I had expectations and excitement and stuff. It didn't turned out exactly as expected.


Everything is connected.

It is understandable to discard insight on psychedelics as being 'brain-addled delusion' if the materialistic supposition is already implanted. Furthermore, such insight is usually overwhelming with assimilation into baseline consciousness being difficult.

However, the same mystical states have been achieved by many without the use of drugs - a gradual onset over a lifetime of discipline.


I'd actually say that the most important consequence of materialism is that everything is connected. There's no sharp boundary between mind and body or self and other, only atoms interacting.


downvoted for irrational mysticism


how is it irrational to say everything is connected?

if you can show me two things that AREN'T connected, you'll have proven him wrong. but you can't, because you just connected the two things you named by putting them into the same sentence.


It's not particularly irrational or mystic. That experience he describes is quite common for people who use mushrooms a few times. What is the difference between you and a chair? What makes your brain so special, and why is it so important that it continue to exist? Why shouldn't a stick held in your hand be considered part of your body (in fact, one of the big differences between humans and most animals is that, unconsciously, we do think that). And why stop there?

And so on.

They sound like stupid questions to dwell on, and they sort of are. They don't have concrete answers, but it's the asking that's important. The drug merely helps a person to honestly take them seriously.


I'm not against philosophical questions. I myself had them while on shrooms.

Still, there is no reason whatsoever to refuse materialism due to a mushroom experience, that is why I called it mysticism. The fact that your brain state alters because you consumed a tiny amount of a certain chemical should be proof of materialism.

The statement that "everything is connected" is meaningless without defining what you mean by "connected". In some quantum-physics way your brain atoms are connected to the atoms on the Jupiter, which is fascinating to think about, but without any real consequence. This fact doesn't change when you are high on shrooms.


Now this post is one that will definitely warrant down-votes.

Modern science, understandably, does not know that the human constitution is comprised of more than the physical body.

They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).

So, all of their efforts in research are pointed to determine the effects in the physical body. Actually, when taking psychedelics it is the astral and etheric body that is being stimulated (the cause) with effects seen in the physical body.

If you truly care to learn more about this I suggest Astral Dynamics by Robert Bruce. You can learn conscious separation of the astral body from the physical body. There's even an exercise that will allow you to determine if the whole experience is objective or subjective - you go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.


> They don't know this because they don't have the instruments to detect the other bodies (such as the astral or etheric).

If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism.

> You go into one room to project and in another room someone writes a number on a paper and tapes it against the wall. You quickly project into the room, read the number, come back to your body and go see if you were right.

If anybody on earth could do that, they'd qualify for James Randi's million dollar prize: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Why don't take the challenge?


"If there is no way to demonstrate the objective reality of those things, they are by definition in the realm of mysticism."

Sure, that is your classification of concepts. However, know that your classification using semantics does not negate whether or not the actual reality exists. Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools. Electrons were not able to be detected thousands of years ago, but now we have the tools to prove their existence. This does not mean electrons did not exist prior to our development of tools to detect them.

The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.

Personally, I am in the beginning states of consciously projecting and controlling the astral body, my fear usually gets in the way of completely separating, though I have floated out of my body and into the ceiling, numerous times.


> Furthermore, they cannot be demonstrated with current tools.

I don't know what you mean by they? It is you who fails to objectively demonstrate the phenomena and claims knowledge. This is called mysticism, plain and simple.

> The Randi challenge is a great point and I have already thought of reaching out to Robert Bruce on his forum to ask him why he himself does not submit a proposal to the institution, seeing as how he is an advanced projector.

I can answer this for you: because there is no such thing as an advanced projector.

He of course will respond with special pleading: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4075


I agree with you, but I don't think the so-called 'mystic' interpretation of the experience is that different from the materialistic one.

Consider Ptolemaic astronomy versus Copernican and later. Copernican astronomy is more accurate sure, and simpler in its construction, and just a better theory. However Ptolemaic astronomy was around for over a thousand years before it and worked quite well, despite being 'wrong' in just about every sense, far moreso than the model of Copernicus. Likewise while I consider 'mystic' interpretations of an experience on mushrooms to be rubbish, I have to admit that most of what they would take from it is not too dissimilar from myself.

If functioning GPS or transistors that worked depended on how most people modeled their experience on mushrooms, I'd probably be more inclined to persuade people toward a more sensible approach, but since for the time being it remains a deeply personal thing, and since it is a rather poor predictor of how they approach the rest of their life, I don't think it really matters.

And to be honest, I initially approached the experience from a mystic or even religious angle (despite being an atheist) but eventually discarded it as unworkable.


Well stated. It always turns me off when people use mysticism as a comforting hand-wave for things which can readily be be stated more plainly, as if shedding some rationality on a subject makes it any less awesome.


Goethe was the king of that sort of irrationality.

You might find the essays in Richard Dawkins's book, Unweaving the Rainbow interesting since the thread drawing them together is that understanding something scientifically does not make it less fascinating, if anything it makes everything even more interesting.


Thanks, I've put that on my reading list.


Excellently said, thank you.


Why is Hacker News so closed-mindedly pro-psychedelic? Do none of you think there is even a debate to be had here?


It is actually a trichotomy: close-minded, open-minded, and so-open-minded-that-all-your-critical-thinking-ability-has-run-out-your-ears. At least a third of HN commenters fall into the third group.


I think that HN is just open-minded. Psychedelics aren't for everyone, but everyone should have the option.


Except everyone who doubts the effectiveness or safety of psychedelics gets downvoted to hell. No debate, just downvotes.


> I had mystical experiences where I thought I understood that the whole world was connected together, and I was connected to the world, and other deep insights. I think this was just brain-addled delusion, not any insight into how things really are.

Hasn't this view been borne out by modern science? The fact that we are made of the same stuff as the dirt and the stars, and that there really is no dividing line between us and the universe, and by extension each other is, I think, a supremely important revelation. I'm curious as to why you dismissed this as a delusion?


It's delusional in the same way that someone else telling me they had a religious experience is delusional.

I cannot prove [to myself!] after the fact that what I experienced under the drug was real. I obviously believed it at the moment I was under the effect of the drug, but afterwards I couldn't recall exactly why I believed that. In other words, there was no way to prove or explain it. So it's delusional -- an event is supposed to have happened but there is no proof of it.

There's simply no reason for me (now) to believe that what I experienced under the drug was real.

(As I said above, I still think LSD should be legal so we can scientifically look at reducing harms from people taking it)


Well when you're going at it from that angle, how can you prove to yourself that anything you experience is real? There are centuries of thought surrounding epistemology, I don't see why problems of how and to what degree we know what we know should apply to drug induced experiences and not regular experiences.

But then again, I don't know what you experienced. The most profound insights I had make perfect sense to me now, and they mesh with current scientific understanding as far as I can tell, so I have no reason to doubt them.


I've never used illegal drugs, and I've never had a desire. However, the one problem we do have by keeping certain drugs illegal is that Americans are destroying countries, like Mexico, where a week doesn't by where a drug gang hasn't killed someone. Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them.


College students are surrounded by drugs. They flow so freely that it seems like prohibition isn't really working. People who want drugs can get them. I don't do them either, nor do I have the desire but it just seems like only the poor and disadvantaged drug users go to jail.


Exactly. If people want drugs, they can get it, but not everyone does. We've already reached equilibrium drug consumption, which is why it's ludicrous to believe that drug use will skyrocket once it is legalized. The current drug policy only serves to fill up jails with those not in the middle class.


In Canada, the statistics for illicit drug use almost mirror the statistics for tobacco use; a legal substance. At this point, it is not even clear what we are attempting to solve by the legislation.


I support legalization for ideaological reasons, but that doesn't at all sound accurate to me

Drug use will almost definitely sky rocket if drugs are legalized, at least initially. We can't really say what will happen, say, 5-10 years after, because legalization in this country is unprecedented.

But ask most users if they'd use more if it was legal, and you'll get your answer. Ask some fence sitters who are too scared to try drugs if they'd use currently illicit drugs if it was legal, and you'll get your answer


There are also drug addicts who would like to stop, if more money (that's currently spent on prevention) was being spent on treatment.

Read up on Portugal, they legalised all drugs, just over ten years ago, and the reports released a few months ago (after ten years of it) showed that there are less people using the drugs that previously were illegal (from weed up to heroine), and a higher percentage of those using drugs are in treatment to stop.


I think they in Portugal have not legalized, but decriminalized drugs, these are two different things.


Not sure about how easy it would be for an out-of-college, non-US person, with no social circle experimenting with such substances get hold of, say, LSD.

Part of the non-legalization problem is that if forces you to go down dark alleys which are certainly not compatible with the all-is-good, geek experimentation philosophy. If forces potential users to associate with the hardcore underground, with all the risks that might entail. On top of that, you will never know what you bought. Testing kits aside, and the futility of trying to scam people on dirt-cheap to produce substances, I would have trouble swallowing anything I wasn't confident I knew it was what it said it was.


Probably you could just ask your kids, or ask around at a college campus, or google it, or check on craigslist (people sell weed on craigslist these days), or ask at a headshop. Also, I'm quite confident that someone you know, even in an extremely sober social circle would know someone who would now.


I won't go into details about why each solution you present is not optimal, because I have a better proposal.

Make LSD and other drugs of similar effect legal. Have the government regulate the distribution. Put an exorbitant price tag on them and disallow buying-in-bulk. Make me sign that I am wholly responsible for what happens to me by using them (even though nothing adverse as lung cancer will, I'm sure). Give me a piece of paper that says the LSD I carry is legal. Done.

Where i'm getting at is that I (for various definitions of I) would gladly pay, say, 1.000 USD/EUR for a "trip" if I knew I wasn't illegal or about to get poisoned. Heck, it's even cheaper than non-spiritual trips.


Why an exorbitant price tag? That will just fuel the black market that is in turn fueling the drug wars (read: with bullets and machetes and thousands of dead people) in Central America.

How about a reasonable price tag?

Or how about blanket legalization of cultivation, possession, and use? I can get a tube of spores for "magic mushrooms" for about $10 and grow my own indefinitely. But for some reason this activity (the growing and using part) is currently highly illegal.

I don't need a license to brew beer and drink it myself or give it away. Why should it be any different for plants and fungi?


> I don't need a license to brew beer and drink it myself or give it away

In the US you do


Actually it's per-state and per-county. Where I live, there's nothing stopping anyone over 21 from brewing their own beer (up to some rather large amount).


This doesn't prevent, but in fact encourages, the black market. Either pay the gov $1000 or the guy in the van $5 (whatever market price is). You already see this with cigarettes in the US, where the price difference between taxed and illegally sold (untaxed) cigarettes are much, much smaller.

Additionally, you'd likely create a black market for whatever piece of paper says the LSD is legal.


I never said I wanted to prevent the black market. I merely stated a scheme under which I would be comfortable acquiring such substances, and the trade-offs likely to be involved (high prices). As for the piece of paper, it was just a figure of speech; passing a law amounts to the same effect.


> people sell weed on craigslist these days

Very dumb people. That's almost sure to earn you a visit from the least harried law enforcement group in your local area.


Mostly I worry about about prohibition causing corruption in the US. The War on Terror has done a lot to erode civil liberties, but the War on Drugs has done even more.



ahem per Mexican History.. before pot becoming illegal in the 1930s do you think the corruption in Mexico was less than it is now?

The answer is no..same amount of corruption..

If we are going to change drug laws it cannot be for the welfare of some other country but to benefit our own.

I think legalizing pot to same level alcohol is and having taxes applied to sale of pot would be step in the right direction.


"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them."

Mexico is already corrupt without the drugs. Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US.

They already have (and know how to run) multi-million dollar operations, you don't think they won't think about legally partnering up with companies in the US?

"If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them."

Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs.

We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin.


>Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US.

Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped.

Re: legalization and decriminalization: see recent studies in Portugal where addiction rates and criminal activity is plummeting.


"Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped."

It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.


There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.


They also don't have huge drug cartels running the place.


Well, exactly.


Ending prohibition would allow the drug supply chain to operate openly, which would tend to result in supply migrating away from undesirable sources. Indeed, the end of alcohol prohibition in the US brought a massive curtailing of the operations of bootleggers in the US. Today the monetary support of violent gangs by way of alcohol bootlegging revenues is essentially non-existent.

As far as government-run health care serving as a lever to control individual behavior, that sounds like a good reason to avoid government-run health care. When the state tries to regulate individual happiness or well being the result is invariably tragedy and disaster. In a free society the government serves society. When society serves government you have tyranny.


Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals?

I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them. Heroin and meth could be legal and I wouldn't do those either. Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all and I really just don't see a huge influx of hard drug users, the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost.

Further, legalization and taxation should cover the additional medical costs, the price of each pack of cigarettes is currently about 56% tax revenue and distilled spirits are around 50%. Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize.


"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them"

Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station.

"Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all"

Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at hand.

" the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost"

Many people don't experiment because they don't know where to get them. Legalizing them also implies that they are okay (if it's legal..it has to be okay..right?)

"Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize"

I would just rather not have the increase strain on our already over-taxes medical system.

Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs. Government taxation and regulation = control.


> Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs.

Everyone? Well that's convenient. That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed.


"That people who agree on one issue would all also agree on several other unrelated issues. Very convenient indeed."

No, they are hypocritical to say that they want the government out of their lives and then also want increased in more government control. You can't have it both ways, sorry.


Everybody except a very small number of consistent libertarians are that way - the liberals/socialists and paleo-conservatives and neo-cons (Judeo-Christian Socialists) just disagree on what they want the government to do. So we mostly end up with the government doing more and more and more. Most of which is not wanted by some group.


Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.


Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime). Just because I don't support your point doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Take a look here:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

Drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths have actually increased since they legalized drugs. This is exactly what I'm saying.


Not logical fallacies..logic (you should use it sometime)

This way of talking to people probably explains the typical type of response you receive. Grow up.


Not to pile on, but:

> Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs.

First, the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to make them difficult to get - I think most university students would agree they are about 3 text messages away from any drug they might want. People don't avoid drugs because they are illegal, they avoid them because they are concerned about addiction & health effects.

Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper.

> We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin.

I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis.


"Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper"

I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results:

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po...

"Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse."

"personal drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent in the last decade."

Drug use is actually up...because there is no legal risk.

More from the article:

"They would meet with the person who had been picked up in possession of whatever drug it was and discuss the issue. These CDTs would then hand down various, sort of, not punishments, but treatments. Some people would, you know, be asked to enter counseling. Some people would be banned from, say, going to raves, if that's where they were doing their drugs; or banned from attending certain concerts or bars, if that's where they were doing drugs. And, you know, this is very controversial, even in Portugal, as you can imagine."

Do you really want the government telling you you can't go to a concert or rave?

I would really like to see the long-term numbers for Portugal. I predict they will be bankrupt within 15 years.

"I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis"

They still get their heads blown off for things like Vicodin (a legal form of heroin), so how will legalizing all drugs be any different?

"Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper."


How is addiction a public health issue?


So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?


"So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right"

The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago.

The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.


Ah, silly me, I thought that the end of prohibition was the main reason for the drop in bootlegging. Boy, what a goofy assumption that was!

So, it's good to know that the cartels won't be "legally partnering up with companies in the US" due to the lower amount of corruption in the U.S. You evidently mis-spoke there, I guess.

Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you mean to imply that the cartels' current cash-rich positions would cushion them from the crash in the prices of their product that would result from the end of drug prohibition. Again, just like what happened in the 30's, right? Surely, those cartels would take their cash and quickly adapt to the new economic climate, perhaps diversifying into real estate and banking. Then we'd really be screwed!

Please go on, rick888. I'm dying to hear more of your theories.


you miss the point completely....with legalization there would be practically no difference between a mexican drug cartel and a mexican company that produces acetaminophen.

When was the last time you read about an acetaminophen cartel(you can call it Cold Cartel to make it sound cooler!)


I wish that his article had delved more into the long term effects (benefits or otherwise) of taking psychedelic drugs rather than going off into a complaint about US drug policy.

Anyone got interesting, concrete data to share rather than anecdotes about Steve Jobs?


"Anyone got interesting, concrete data to share rather than anecdotes about Steve Jobs?"

Here are all of the Johns Hopkins studies on psilocybin:

http://csp.org/psilocybin/

You might also be interested in going to Horizons if you're going to be in NYC this coming weekend:

http://www.horizonsnyc.org

It's all of the talks on the latest scientific research on psychedelics for therapeutic use. You can also watch many of their previous talks here:

http://vimeo.com/horizons

As well as many of the talks from the huge MAPS conference that took place last April:

http://www.maps.org/media/videos/

If you're looking to read any books on this, a couple I'd recommend would be:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594774021/erowid-20

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1594772509/erowid-20

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892819278/erowid-20

I have an entire page with many more links to this stuff, but it's on Squidoo so if I linked to it then my comment would be auto-deleted. Heh.

edit: Changed Amazon links to donate affiliate fees to Erowid


All the studies I've seen either have to do with safety, perceived benefit (self-evaluated), or effect on attitude (openness) as measured by a survey. Do you know of any studies which identify an objectively measurable positive benefit to the subjets? For example: decreased risk of suicide, decreased risk of divorce, increased likelihood of solving a long-standing problem, increased success at work, etc.


"Do you know of any studies which identify an objectively measurable positive benefit to the subjets?"

Deciding whether something is objectively measurable or not has thousands of years worth of philosophical baggage, so I can't really say whether any of these will meet your definition, but for what it's worth:

- Using LSD to treat alcoholism

- Using ibogaine to treat opiate addiction: http://vimeo.com/20118700

- Using psilocybin to treat smoking: http://vimeo.com/15913255

- Self-evaluated life quality in psychedelic drug users vs. non-users: http://www.maps.org/videos/source4/video12.html

- Using MDMA for PTSD: http://www.oprah.com/health/PTSD-and-MDMA-Therapy-Medical-Us...

- Using LSD / Psilocybin for cluster headaches: http://vimeo.com/10918637

- Using LSD for solving long-standing problems. (James Fadiman discusses this in his book that I linked to, and I think also here: http://www.maps.org/videos/source4/video5.html.)


Thank you for the response. Philosophical discussion aside, I think most of us can agree that there is a huge difference in reliability between self-reported results, and the more objective examples I mentioned.

I appreciate the videos, but I'm really looking for controlled studies. (In principle, I'm very open to the idea of using drugs like LSD for the treatment of things like alcoholism or cluster headaches. And I think it's a shame that, given the relative degree of safety associated with these drugs, it's nearly impossible to legally runs such studies. But at the end of the day, there looks like a huge lack of evidence and I'm very skeptical.)

Thanks again.


"I appreciate the videos, but I'm really looking for controlled studies."

Here is the first of probably many controlled studies with 2-bromo-LSD for cluster headaches:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/lsd-alleviates...

The MDMA research on PTSD also has placebo controls. There are several different studies on this, you can probably find them via maps.org.

And James Fadiman writes about actual research done on problem solving in his book, although it isn't really possible to control since each person's long-standing problem is different.


Awesome, thanks!

> Cluster headache attack cessation and remission extension of months or longer in six treatment-refractory patients administered only 3 doses of BOL-148

> Five male patients with treatment-refractory chronic cluster headache and one female patient with treatment-refractory mixed cluster/migrainous headache were administered 2-bromo-LSD (BOL-148) (20mcg/kg) at five-day intervals for a total of three treatments. Sixteen-week outcome data on the five male patients revealed a robust treatment response, with three of the five having no attacks for more than one month, thereby shifting their diagnosis back to the episodic form of cluster headache. Similarly, the female patient reported quiescence of cluster attacks for greater than one month and "significant" improvement in migraine in the following weeks from last dose of BOL-148. This poster presents longterm outcome data on all 6 patients who received BOL-148. In follow-up with these patients, BOL-148 provided significant headache relief that lasted for several months to more than one-year. Data suggests that BOL-148 may function as an important new treatment, though, at present, there is no explanation for such long-term prophylactic effects with no later drug re-administrations. There is some evidence that BOL-148 is affecting epigenetic mechanisms and may open the possibility for a near-cure-like treatment for patients afflicted with vascular headaches.

Incidentally, this is apparently a non-hallucinogenic analog of LSD.


Those psilocybin studies are the same ones which led to the study OP cites about psychedelics increasing Openness to experience (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Openness_to_e...), incidentally.


As usual, Erowid[1] has plenty of interesting content; particularly, the References Database[2] has many papers about the subject.

[1]: http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd.shtml [2]: http://www.erowid.org/references/refs.php?A=SearchAll&An...


"I take illegal drugs for inspiration", paper by Dr. Sue Blackmore is a fascinating read:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/telegraphdrugs.ht...


I see other posters have covered the benefits quite well, of which there are many.

One possible drawback is HPPD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percept...


Here's a Google Tech Talk on "Mainstreaming Psychedelics," from the director of MAPS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwAGkGpv6Ss


> a complaint about US drug policy.

That would be indicative of an article about politics, which would be better off on some other site for the discussions of US politics and laws.


As a young man, I took psychedelics several times under the pretense of mind expansion. Looking back, I think the things I've read (and internalized), relationships I've had, and just generally "getting out of my comfort zone" had a more formative effect on my outlook than any chemicals.

If you want to use them, that's fine. But I would hate to think a young hacker reading this stuff felt like he needed to use psychedelics.

The notion that dropping acid was one of the two or three most important things Steve Jobs had done in his life seems a bit...reality distorting.


The apple logo itself could be taken as a symbol of accepting psychedelic insight. A bite of the forbidden apple.

When talking about Steve Jobs and LSD, we should consider the work of Myron Stolaroff and his associates. LSD can be used in anything from satanic orgies to mystical new age woo to CIA mind control experiments to creative technical problem solving. The branch of the psychedelic family tree SJ plucked his apple from is related to Myron Stolaroff's work on creative and technical problem solving.

Article by Myron Stolaroff on using psychedelics wisely: http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/writings/stolaroff_using...

Podcast featuring early psychedelic researcher James Fadiman "Using Psychedelics to solve technical and scientific problems" http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=3226003&song=042-Fad...

Article mostly about Al Hubbard (fascinating reading in it's own right), which connects Steve Jobs to Myron Stolaroff's advocacy of LSD among engineers and technologists: http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/alfred-captain-al-hub...

And finally, a 1960s study about LSD and creative problem solving (by Stolaroff, Fadiman, et al) "Psychedelic Agents in Creative Problem Solving: A pilot study" http://www.erowid.org/references/texts/show/7609docid6734


Jobs was one of a kind, and to attribute his achievements even in part, to hallucinogens is a fallacy. If it was true, there would be more people like Steve Jobs in the world today.

I think Steve was wrong on this, as he was wrong on other things, i.e. that pancreatic cancer could be treated with a special diet. Maybe if Steve sought medical attention earlier he would still be with us today changing the world.


The man himself asserted that certain experiences are integral to his outlook, and by extension a certain measure of his success. Maybe you don't like how he came by those experiences - so what? What fallacy is being committed here?

I wouldn't conflate his position on hallucinogens with his opinion on alternative medicine. He doesn't have to be either all right or all wrong.


> What fallacy is being committed here?

Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy.

I'm not sure why so many people are excited about this, it seems like a cheap pro-legalization play in light of his death.


> Concluding that he wouldn't been the same successful person without doing LSD. There's no evidence of causation. That's the fallacy.

Who's making that conclusion? As far as I can tell, nobody's attributing his success entirely to LSD. I'm sure he'd have been successful without it. But a person is a product of their experiences, and he plainly states that LSD factored strongly into it. You can disbelieve him, but I don't know why one would have trouble believing that.

I tend to agree that this is only getting so much play right now because of the Jobs connection, which is getting annoying for some, but that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.


> Who's making that conclusion?

Everyone who even brings up that he used LSD as a point of interest. At least that's the implication being made.

> that doesn't make the points being made any less valid.

No, the points are not valid. That's why we have a scientific method that proves causation.

It's the exact same fallacy that someone falls into with e.g. alternative medicine. A person's cancer went into remission while they were eating tree bark. They are free to believe it helped them, but that doesn't mean it's scientifically, or even remotely, the case. Taking their word for it doesn't make it true.


The notion that psychadelics affect a person's outlook is not that great a leap to make, and others have already posted links to studies supporting that. While I'm not asserting that LSD was the lynchpin to his success, I really don't see that it's the same as alternative medicine at all.


> "even in part"

Unless you were a personal friend of Steve Jobs, I don't see how you can possibly support this statement. You're saying that you know, for sure, that Steve's experiences with drugs did not influence his intellectual development or his sense of aesthetics in any useful way?


My dad died nine months after being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer, which was three months longer than expected. Steve Jobs died years later, after the Whipple Surgery and a liver transplant.


I'm sorry for you loss. Jobs had a rare type of pancreatic cancer, islet cell neuroendocrine tumour, which accounts for ~1.3% of cases. With early enough treatment, the prognosis for this type of cancer is much better than other types of pancreatic cancer.


Ah, didn't know that. Thanks.


Slightly different situation, as Steve Jobs had an extremely rare form of pancreatic cancer that is much less fatal than the common one, that he chose not to treat thereby making it fatal.


Tim Ferris does a high dose of mushrooms (psilocybin) once a year. He says that each trip has had a major positive impact for several months and solved a major problem in his life.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17192634 @ 0:33:42



Great article. I've gone back to that thought "Everything we do is to alter our consciousness" since my first highs.

I went to a church for a concert recently and I was struck with the lengths these people went to in order to alter their consciousness without "drugs". Highly emotionally charged speakers work everyone up. Food and coffee are practically fetishized. There's a nice (albeit kind of unnatural/forced) sense of community that hits certain primal emotional triggers. So yeah, everyone's trying to altering their consciousness.


There might be some truth to Steve Jobs' view of LSD.

There have been studies that link psychedelics and aesthetics: http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-09-29/Magic-m...

I'd say LSD is like steroids for artists/designers/creative people or Adderall/Ritalin for students. Sure it won't make you creative overnight but it will reaaalllly help, and it's kind of dangerous. Most of the danger comes from illegality, of course :)

It is just a lot easier to come up with new ideas when your mind is open and sketchbook seems to be a direct extension of your brain, where you can just 'think' ideas with pencil.


It’s fascinating to juxtapose America’s reverence for Steve Jobs’ accomplishments and its draconian drug policy

The author confuses American government policy with American citizens.


Since this article brings up an LSD anecdote from Steve Jobs, I'll add one from someone who is not famous at all, but which I think is no less useful.

A few weeks ago, I spotted two men fighting outside of a bar. The older man got violently pushed to the ground, and I went up to him to see if he was okay, and ask him what had happened.

He rambled on for a while, telling me that dropping acid in the early 1970s was one of the most important experiences he had ever had. It put him in touch with a higher dimension, and he would sometimes receive messages from there. The reason people beat him up sometimes, he explained, was that he spoke the truth, directly as God sent it to him, and that people didn't like hearing the truth.

Make up your own mind about LSD, but try to take into account more than one data point!


For anyone who is interested in the article, I strongly recommend reading "What the Dormouse Said" by John Markoff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Dormouse_Said

It's about how the counter-culture attitude of the 60s helped inspire the PC wave of innovation. Drug use is one of the core topics, but it is not romanticized. The book is very "matter of fact" in its analysis of how drugs were involved in the evolution of the PC.



and the relevance to this article is?


So is this the pattern we can expect for the coming months? HN posts titled "Steve Jobs and [insert my agenda here]"?

I realize when you want publicity for your cause, startup, whatever you tie it to something else that's in the news anyway but all these "Steve Jobs and X" posts are bordering on tacky or tasteless.

Although at least this isn't as bad as Stallman's truly tasteless rant.


[edit because absurdity is apparently not obvious] By the author's logic,[/edit] perhaps people should consider putting their children up for adoption, too.

However, I suspect that moving to Silicon Valley would be more likely to provide them with opportunities for success.


The author's logic isn't "Steve Jobs took LSD, you should too", it's "Steve Jobs took LSD and credits it as a crucially important intellectual experience in his life, so maybe you should too." I'm pretty sure Jobs didn't say the same thing about being adopted.


The author's argument is more along the lines of:

  P1 = Steve Jobs was a success.
  P2 = Steve Jobs took LSD.
  -------
  Therefore US drug policy is bad.


> Perhaps people should consider putting their children up for adoption, too.

Well, from the (very cynic) view of an armchair psychologist, one of the possible consequences of a child losing their parents can be a subconscious feeling of inferiority, of not being wanted, of not being good enough, ever. Depending on "temperament" and character, this kid could suffer from severe depressions all their life and never achieve anything or they could react to this by starting to heavily over-compensate and trying to be very successful and powerful. So, yes, if you want to put it like that... scarring an unsuspecting kid for life like this might just ultimately yield you another CEO hero, however unlikely.

Work, power and success can be a very potent drug and/or replacement. Not all motivations in life are positive, nourishing and healthy. Even very self-destructive tendencies could at the same time yield you tremendous (outside visible) "success", status and money.


The article is all over the place and somewhat poorly written, but I generally agree with the overall premise before I even clicked the link: America's drug policy of prohibition is a waste of time, money and resources.


Reminds me of Carl Sagan's musings on marijuana usage.


Okay, so the article has some valid arguments. But why use Steve Jobs to make a point about drugs?


Godwins law is tranforming to Jobs law. All discussions will lead to Steve Jobs.


Not really. This is little more than the media using Steve Jobs' death as a hook for whatever particular story they are writing or comment they wish to make. It too will pass.


I will never understand how HN manages to be so (maybe relatively) anti-drug, even in a latent fashion on this topic. I do, not, understand this sentiment. For all of the things that HN does not take at face value, there is a blind acceptance of the "drugs are evil" viewpoint espoused (often exclusively in the face of their own studies, dozens of times, over 20 years) by the United States Government.

Downvote within 3 minutes, immediate comments touting how evil and unhealthy they are (which for the majority of lower level drugs are simply untrue, but you wouldn't know that unless you thought for yourself and read the literature).

Maybe I should clarify, there is an unusually large amount of effort that seems to be exuded in terms of keeping others from taking drugs, either through culture, pressure or laws than I am used to expecting on HN.


It seems plain to me that drug opinion on HN ranges from "don't care" to "aggressively advocating legalization". Are you sure you're not just spoiling for a fight? (It's ok; we all get bored sometimes).

Your comment captures nicely one of the things I hate most about out-of-place political stories on HN. There isn't enough diversity of opinion here to have a real debate, so basically what we get is a competition of who can be the most ardently in favor of the idea.

(I'm "don't care" leaning to "legalize because prohibition is expensive", for whatever that's worth to you).

I flagged this stupid article, by the way. What Greenwald says here he could have said at any time during the last 10 years. He's using the tragic death of a public figure as an excuse to suck all the oxygen out of the room and replace it with something else. This is bad, tactless writing period, not just a poor fit for HN.


"He's using the tragic death of a public figure as an excuse to suck all the oxygen out of the room and replace it with something else."

The problem is that the fact that Steve Jobs even is a public figure is due mostly to random luck, that is he wasn't one of the people who got sent to prison for 10+ years for possession or whatever.


After coming back to this after a couple hours, I realize that I may have misinterpreted what appears to be a vocal minority based on comments that I'm seeing (rather annoyingly actually) buried.


Are the downvotes just because the article is (another) hack job fluff article with a tenuous link to Steve Jobs, or because people like HN for tech news and not the same arguments about politics/religion/morality that make Internet forums so homogenous and boring?

All the comments here are heavily skewed towards legalization/tolerance of drug use (at worst, outright indifference) so what gives you the impression that HN "blindly accepts the 'drugs are evil' viewpoint"?

(Personal opinion: Legalize and tax the lot, treat addiction as a health issue and not a criminal one.)


I don't know, you're possibly right. I think the influence (or lack there of) of LSD on Steve Jobs as mildly interesting. I think creativity and ingenuity is undervalued in the industry that HN caters to, but I understand the sentiment that this article or even my comment might be off-topic and that's fine.

On this post and (more) on other SteveJobs/LSD posts over the last year, I've seen people nearly talk about marijuana as if it is the destroyer of worlds, which I don't think any reputable scientist has possibly ever endorsed, yet people are scared and hide in their bunkers because they're never tried, done any research on their own, and just take the "AboveTheInfluence" ads at face value.


"I've seen people nearly talk about marijuana as if it is the destroyer of worlds, which I don't think any reputable scientist has possibly ever endorsed"

Are you denying the negative effects drugs have on many people? Pot may not have many effects on physical health, but it certainly does on mental health.

Many people I know that smoke pot have almost no ambition. Pot becomes almost like a second girlfriend. Everything in life revolves around getting money to smoke more pot. I've seen this happen with way too many people to think that it's a unique case.

But, it actually helps me, because it just means less competition in the workforce.

"yet people are scared and hide in their bunkers because they're never tried, done any research on their own, and just take the "AboveTheInfluence" ads at face value"

How about the people that know how bad it is and just don't agree with the sentiment that it's good for you?


Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something.

We could easily replace pot with any number of substances, even legal psychoactive drugs. There are plenty of alcoholics in this world, does that mean that if I can enjoy alcohol occasionally and responsibly I shouldn't be able to? Many anxiety patients abuse their benzodiazapines, should patients that follow prescribed treatment and benefit from them also be made into villains?

I'm sorry for anyone who becomes dependent upon anything and hope they get help, I have experienced it with members of my own family. I'd like to think that a legal structure and clear education would help (though I don't recall in High School ever being given any instruction on responsible drinking, which should happen in my opinion). But some of us benefit from smoking within reason, from indulging in the rare psychoactive break from reality, that some people have problems with these things - doesn't mean everyone does.

Edit: I realize in the opening I use "you" saying other people shouldn't do it. In your comment, you don't make any explicit mention of supporting prohibition, and was using you there in the plural sense, apologize for the comment.


I see the drug overlords have again down-modded me for not being a troll and merely stating my opinion on the matter.

"Your welcome to believe that it is bad for you and that you don't want to do it, but I disagree that that should translate to you saying other people can't do something."

I'm fine with it as long as users of these drugs have to pay higher medical fees (if we ever have government-run health care).

The MJ bill in CA that didn't pass also would have made it difficult for an employer to fire an employee that uses regularly. This isn't okay with me.


And to be consistent, I'm sure you'll endorse higher medical fees (and abridged employment) for users of other, more dangerous substances such as alcohol, acetaminophen, and redundant girlfriends, to name but a few.


You don't get it, the MJ bill did not prevent employers from firing employees if they were not competent or able to keep up with their work or if they were impaired by their drug use. Again, you have the hand shaking, scary notion of marijuana, and it's frankly silly to the rest of us. People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded, fearful assumption on your part, frankly born of ignorance.


"People don't have higher associated medical costs because of marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, etc. It's a completely unfounded"

proof?

You can't honestly tell me that that nobody has higher associated medical costs as a result of MJ, LSD, and shrooms. Now who's being naive..

I actually might support MJ. However, my problem is that not only do you want it legalized, but you want to spread the false notion that it's actually ok (and actually has health benefits) to do these drugs.


Great point! I hereby endorse illegalizing second girlfriends as well.


It's not really fair of me to doubt people's anecdotes, but for ALL of the stoners I know, this has never been descriptive of them. Two of the biggest pot heads I know are starting a company and already have a dozen clients, and the others have 6 figure salaries waiting for them on the West coast.


"Two of the biggest pot heads I know are starting a company and already have a dozen clients, and the others have 6 figure salaries waiting for them on the West coast."

Again, why are people defending pot here like a second girlfriend?


One can easily be anti-drug while supporting legalization. I personally support legalization of more drugs, but I'm not going to do them myself and I'm going to do what I can to keep my kid off them.


Personally...

  A. Don't do any dangerous drugs, except under a doctor's guidence.   
  B. I don't want anyone who breaks rule A to be jailed.


I think the shadow of addiction is the real concern for most, more than the drug or their effects while "on it".


I've never gotten that impression. HN is generally fiercely libertarian, often to a fault, and that hardly suggests an anti-drug sentiment. There is probably not a single actively contributing user who would support the death penalty for repeat drug offenders, for example, yet such people are not hard to find in the general population.


They may not be evil, but they aren't particularly good for you either


To what drugs are you referring, exactly? And what does "particularly good" mean? The whole point of the article is Jobs' claim that some experience with hallucinogens was, in fact, particularly good for him.


You could say the same about chocolate cake.


Sugar, you're right. Natural organic unsweetened dark chocolate "in moderation"? No concerns, antioxidant, aphrodisiac etc. pp.


All illegal drugs are not equivalent simply because they happen to be currently illegal. Some of them aren't even particularly bad for you.


Maybe because is better to be safe than sorry? The fact is that there are a lot of people whose life is very publicly destroyed by drugs.


In terms of safety, alcohol and tabacco rank worse than illegal substances like Marijuana, LSD, MDMA and other illegal drugs.


Maybe so, but alcohol and tobacco do no land you in jail if caught.


It helps to be precise in this kind of discussion. Which drugs? I would bet that cocaine, alcohol, marijuana, and LSD all have very different life destruction rates, so lumping them all together under the over-broad umbrella of "drugs" isn't helpful.


What? And there are a lot of peoples' lives destroyed by greed. Does that mean you don't seek to make money?

A greater percentage of water drinks drown than marijuana/lsd/mushroom users die from marijuana/etc usage. (As in, no one dies from them.)


That is a logical fallacy.


How is that a fallacy? "Better safe than sorry" is a platitude that can be used against any activity that entails some degree of risk.


Greed is not illegal and as long as you do not abuse it just like with alcohol, driving, etc. etc. You should be OK. You could say similar things about some drugs, some argue, unfortunately they are illegal, they can land you in jail, and they support a drug cartel.

>>"Better safe than sorry" is a platitude that can be used against any activity that entails some degree of risk.

But I wasn't using it for anything. I was using it for this specific case of doing illegal drugs. And mine was just an opinion, obviously nobody can stop you from doing what you want.


Yes, I can see that you picked this specific case to apply your platitude. Feel free to pick any number of other cases as well, completely at random if you wish, and your argument will propel them all with equal force.


Wether it is or not a platitude is irrelevant, it doesn't devalue the advise. It is good advise to tell somebody that it is better to be safe than sorry not to use an illegal substance especially if doing so can land you in jail.


Which fallacy?


>>A greater percentage of water drinks drown than marijuana/lsd/mushroom users die from marijuana/etc usage

Is a fallacy or a false argument in the sense that you can say that about pretty much anything.

-Eat just meat for a couple of weeks and it will kill you

-Eat just pasta and it will make you sick

-cars kill more people than X

-etc. etc.

He is not providing a real argument.

Is like me telling you that aluminum causes memory problems and you coming back and telling me that more people die from cars. What does that have to do with the first comment?

I was just providing an opinion about better not use illegal drugs because of all the physical and legal consequences they can have. Not sure what all the outrage is about and how can some people equate that with drinking water or alcohol, or even greed.


Grandparent: What is the reason for the anti-drug stance of many people at HN?

You: Because drugs can hurt you. Better safe than sorry!

drivebyacct2: That's a useless assertion that can be easily (and more appropriately) applied to many other activities seen as legit in a civil society.

You: But you can say what you said about anything.

See the irony here?


RUMOUR: Apple to start selling iLSD.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: