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.
Comments
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.