This article is very well-written, well-thought-out, and interesting to hackers. (Do any hackers really want to live somewhere where the government tells you what you can and can't eat?)
So while it might appeal to Reddit for the "legalize weed" angle, it appeals to us for the points it brings up, and its explanation thereof.
I agree completely with the article, and like a lot of stuff from that 'newspaper', it is well written. However, I still think it's basically about politics, and would prefer not to see it here. Politics is a poisonous topic.
Few governments would tell you what you can and can't eat, but they sure do limit what you can sell to other people to eat, and most people are ok with that (minus a few libertarians who enjoy thinking up creative systems that more or less achieve the same results, minus the government).
Agreed. The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it. Which means that HN has gotten to the point where people are only upvoting as a way to encourage others to read articles expressing viewpoints they agree with.
On the other hand, The Economist has been against drug prohibition for a long time. (If I recall correctly) So it is questionable how novel this really is.
Nah, I downmodded you because you used the "I'll probably get downmodded for this" line.
Also, this is a fine article -- it's well-written and makes some points that are novel (to me, at least). The fact that it's espousing one of the stances that redditors tend to blindly support is irrelevant.
Comments
Interesting article. I'll probably get downmodded for saying this, but I do believe that this being #1 brings HN one step closer to reddit.
This article is very well-written, well-thought-out, and interesting to hackers. (Do any hackers really want to live somewhere where the government tells you what you can and can't eat?)
So while it might appeal to Reddit for the "legalize weed" angle, it appeals to us for the points it brings up, and its explanation thereof.
I agree completely with the article, and like a lot of stuff from that 'newspaper', it is well written. However, I still think it's basically about politics, and would prefer not to see it here. Politics is a poisonous topic.
Few governments would tell you what you can and can't eat, but they sure do limit what you can sell to other people to eat, and most people are ok with that (minus a few libertarians who enjoy thinking up creative systems that more or less achieve the same results, minus the government).
Agreed. The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it. Which means that HN has gotten to the point where people are only upvoting as a way to encourage others to read articles expressing viewpoints they agree with.
The only thing novel here is that it's The Economist saying it.
But that is in fact huge. This is practically The Establishment saying it.
they've stated this position before: "Hooked on just saying no" (1989) http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story...
to get a better sense of where they're reacting to the full briefing from this weekend's issue is worth a read:
"On the trail of the traffickers" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234157
"Sniffy customers" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234124
"A toker's guide" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234134
"In America, lessons learned" http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13234144
and overall their perspective is well summarized by the cover art: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayCover.cfm?url=/...
On the other hand, The Economist has been against drug prohibition for a long time. (If I recall correctly) So it is questionable how novel this really is.
Nah, I downmodded you because you used the "I'll probably get downmodded for this" line.
Also, this is a fine article -- it's well-written and makes some points that are novel (to me, at least). The fact that it's espousing one of the stances that redditors tend to blindly support is irrelevant.
But that's a redditism too. Ironic, isn't it?