We took the word "exciting" out of the HN title, since doing so makes the title more neutral.
I'm sorry about your friend and can easily understand your feeling. But could you please not turn these threads into off-topic arguments about the topic being on HN? This article is substantive and of interest to the community. Upvoting it doesn't imply endorsement, just curiosity.
It's my opinion, based on facts I witnessed, not vendetta. And I don't want somebody else to share the same fate.
You say it doesn't imply endorsement, but I think threads like this lower the barrier and increase probability of drug consumption. Multiplied by large audience, this gives some new drugs users.
Mentioning an object plants seeds in people minds. Mention oranges, you will have increased oranges consumption, mention Facebook React - more React users, mention coca-cola - increased cola consumption.
And I've known hundreds of people who have taken one of the most powerful psychedelics on the planet between 3-5 and hundreds of times each. Of them, there's been exactly one case of an adverse reaction that I've seen, on the part of a woman who had a pre-existing, but occult mental health issue.
My anecdata can beat up your anecdata.
Of course, none of that means it doesn't happen, but it happens radically less often than you seem to want people to believe.
I know people who have been essentially cured of otherwise intractable PTSD through the use of psychedelics. Would you prefer them to have suffered for the rest of their lives? All medicine carries risk, and it is through research that we learn how to apply it safely. Suppressing research is what leads to uninformed use, and increased danger.
You may be right that there is a problem with social proof deluding people into thinking psychedelics are more harmless than they are. But that can't be the only factor here. If it were, we'd have to bury all stories about serious psychedelics research. That isn't going to happen.
Therefore, please stop re-litigating the presence of these stories on Hacker News. You're creating a gigantic off-topic diversion. If you want to comment on the topic, that's fine, but please make an effort to ensure that your comments aren't flamebait.
I know hundreds of high-functioning drug users, and know that sometimes illegal drugs can be beneficial.
But also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs - the #1 cause of death amongst my peers. More than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also many more that are alive but seriously damaged.
Drug addiction creates second-hand victims, the parents/children/siblings/family. Unbelievably painful.
The town I grew up in was torn apart by drugs and gangs. Watch 'The Wire' - art imitating life.
The costs of drugs are truly staggering.
Seems I'm the lone person who agrees with @avodonosov. The mods have told us that anti-drug views are not welcome on HN. At this point many of you are reaching for the downvote button. :-)
Sorry but - yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside!
Please consider that at least some of the downvotes you're receiving may have more to do with your claim that you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome" on HN than with the positions, themselves.
Delusions of persecution aren't conducive to the kind of discourse we're trying to maintain here.
EDIT: It's also fallacious to lump all "drugs" together under the same banner. I'm very skeptical that psychedelics factor significantly into drug-related gang violence and trafficking. I also very much doubt that there are very many LSD or psilocybin "addicts" around.
This article was about legitimate scientific exploration of a repeatedly claimed benefit of psychedelics. It has nothing whatsoever to do with gangs, violence, trafficking, or addiction. As such, those issues are tangential at best, and probably also diversionary and specious.
> very much doubt that there are very many LSD "addicts" around
My cousin - big LSD user - messed up his brain function. After that: drooling/voices/psychosis. Years of hell for his parents. Hell is an understatement.
He died at a rehab / halfway house - killed by a fellow resident - stabbed in the heart with a butcher knife.
My childhood friend - took LSD/psychedelics in Japan & never came out of it. Bumbling around in the streets naked, didn't know his name etc. His parents had to go bring him home. 20 years later he lives with them still, can't hold a job, can't handle a relationship, doesn't even come out of the house.
Me and tons of others took psychedelics with no side effects - it works that way for most people. But when it goes wrong, the downside can be staggering.
> re: you and 'avodonosov's positions are "not welcome"
If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself.
If you think HN is open to anti-drug views, you're kidding yourself.
I'll certainly concede that HN doesn't tend to respond well to a position of, "Drugs are bad, mmm'kay?" I submit that has more to do with that being a hopelessly naïve stance than anything else.
Sure, some drugs are bad. Sure, some drugs are bad for some people. Sure, some people probably shouldn't take any drugs at all.
Going from that to blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical, and is very likely not to be a welcome notion in a community as broadly libertarian (note, small-l) in attitude as we "hackers" tend to be.
> blanket condemnation and prohibition is sloppy and illogical
I said:
> yes it is possible - drugs can have a downside!
Nowhere in this discussion do I call for prohibition. Downvotes are given to the possibility that drugs can have a downside. Now who is sloppy and illogical?
There's a strong temptation on HN to see the community and perhaps also the mods as lined up against oneself on controversial issues. For the sake of interesting discussion—and, I can add from experience, one's own well-being—it's important to resist this. Such perceptions are easily distorted by cognitive bias: enemies loom larger than friends, negative responses feel stronger than positive ones, you are more likely to notice what you dislike, and so on.
The community does have more bias on some issues, but there's nearly always room for calm, substantive contrarian arguments and minority views. What there isn't room for is the frustrated comments people tend to post when they become convinced that the community is against them. That's the HN equivalent of going on tilt.
Other users respond negatively to the lashing-out aspect, which then gets interpreted as "hostility to my views", "groupthink", and so on. When someone knows a truth that others don't, arguing this way actually discredits that truth, because it gives others a fresh reason to reject it.
As for the moderators, we try as hard as we know how not to let our personal views influence moderation activity, and to keep the latter strictly procedural. I know we don't do that perfectly, but one does improve with practice, and we get a lot of that.
p.s. I'm sorry about your cousin and your friend. I'd feel intensely too in your position.
> But I also have many friends and family who were killed by drugs. Drugs are the #1 cause of death amongst my peers - killing more than war, car crashes, cancer combined. Mark, John, Sue, Bryan, Dan, Jeff RIP. Also know half-dozen more that are alive but seriously damaged.
You might be confusing drugs and drug policy.
Poor drug policy like the "War on Drugs" has killed millions, and is indeed a huge tragedy that needs to come to an end.
Edit: To whoever downvoted this comment: could you please reply to this comment with your concerns (instead of downvoting and walking away)?
I'm sorry about your friend and can easily understand your feeling. But could you please not turn these threads into off-topic arguments about the topic being on HN? This article is substantive and of interest to the community. Upvoting it doesn't imply endorsement, just curiosity.