Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by dredmorbius | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

dredmorbius·

Regarding the first: Contrary to your earlier assertion, however, it is an extant definition in a sense of the word.

You don't like the definition. The definition, however, exists.

Regarding the second: We're discussing its regulation here and now.

(Updated to clarify which aspects of comment I'm responding to, and how.)

View on HN

I would argue that nicotine is not a controlled substance, so it doesn't fall under this definition anyway.

But, that said, it is totally valid to argue that a definition is wrong, misleading, or incomplete. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, but thanks for saying that.

You'd be arguing that on a discussion concerning its regulation.

Does this dissonance not register at all with you?

It would be a tautological argument for its addition to the list of controlled substances. Like so, "It's a narcotic because it's a controlled substance and it's a controlled substance because it's a narcotic." Calling it a narcotic is not helpful.

I do wish you would stop taking jabs at me personally.

Nobody made that argument. The cause it for being on the list is "deadly addictive". See above.

See above indeed.

I gave you a direct quote. What are you referring to?

I'm not being taken for a ride where we pretend that nothing was intended nor implied by calling it a narcotic.

You are being taken for a ride for this statement:

> Not a narcotic in any sense of the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com