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.
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.
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.
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 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...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
In the US you do
Additionally, you'd likely create a black market for whatever piece of paper says the LSD is legal.
Very dumb people. That's almost sure to earn you a visit from the least harried law enforcement group in your local area.
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.
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.
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.
It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.
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.
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.
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? Well that's convenient. 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.
Take a look here:
Drug use, addiction, and drug-related deaths have actually increased since they legalized drugs. This is exactly what I'm saying.
This way of talking to people probably explains the typical type of response you receive. Grow up.
> 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.
I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results:
"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."
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.
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.
When was the last time you read about an acetaminophen cartel(you can call it Cold Cartel to make it sound cooler!)
Anyone got interesting, concrete data to share rather than anecdotes about Steve Jobs?
Here are all of the Johns Hopkins studies on psilocybin:
You might also be interested in going to Horizons if you're going to be in NYC this coming weekend:
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:
As well as many of the talks from the huge MAPS conference that took place last April:
If you're looking to read any books on this, a couple I'd recommend would be:
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
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.)
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.)
Here is the first of probably many controlled studies with 2-bromo-LSD for cluster headaches:
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.
> 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.
One possible drawback is HPPD:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/17192634 @ 0:33:42
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 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.
The author confuses American government policy with American citizens.
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!
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.
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.
However, I suspect that moving to Silicon Valley would be more likely to provide them with opportunities for success.
P1 = Steve Jobs was a success.
P2 = Steve Jobs took LSD.
Therefore US drug policy is bad.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
Again, why are people defending pot here like a second girlfriend?
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.
A greater percentage of water drinks drown than marijuana/lsd/mushroom users die from marijuana/etc usage. (As in, no one dies from them.)
>>"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.
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
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.
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?