Hacker News Reader

Comment by garbagetime | Hacker News Reader

> it is definitely not unbiased.

Can one really reach that conclusion from your evidence? A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

View on HN

That’s true, but my view is even if the original article is unbiased, the selection process by which it was chosen to appear on this periodical with the reach it has introduces some statistical bias.

That's perhaps a bit pendatic. Maybe vested interest would be a more accurate term, but the idea is quite clear from context.

Yes, a person peddling a harmful substance donates to making a broader set of harmful substances more acceptable.

I agree all those cheseburgers French fries and cheese platters need to go!

Only theoritically, in an abstract sense only applicable in lab settings.

In real life and in practice there is always some influencing, some internal censorship, some gloves being kept on, and so on. And it's ten times so if the person wants to continue to receive more sponsorships in the future...

> A person can recieve sponsorships without allowing that fact to influence the person's writing.

yeah right.

Are Philip morris getting into the ecstasy business? Seems unlikely.

No but if more harmful things get normalised, then users of their product can feel less guilty.

It's a variation on the "commoditize your complement" pattern.

(before someone says: "actually x is less harmful than y", I mean their perception by the general public)

Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy?

I was going to make the actual harm comment before your edit, but I still wonder about the premise.

I assume most parents would be less concerned by cigarette-use, but attitudes may differ from one country to the other.

>Does the general public perceive cigarettes to be safer than ecstasy?

Obviously so?

Obvious based on what? Is there recent polling on this?

This doesn't seem like an obvious conclusion at all in 2022, with major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking and rapidly evolving/shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general.

I think you're overblowing both the "major shifts in understanding about the risks of smoking" and the "shifting sentiment about recreational drugs in general".

Some (all?) states legalized weed use in some cases, it's not like it's some welcome acceptable thing in the average global working/middle/upper class family, and E/MDMA much less so...

I don’t agree that this is overblown at all, and I was primarily asking exploratory questions.

There is strong evidence of a major shift right in front of us in the form of new laws (federal/country-wide in some locations), legal dispensaries, and a new and exploding (legal) industry that is bringing in significant money. Main stream documentaries on Netflix about Mushrooms, a shift in tone regarding drug use in popular media, etc.

These laws are passing with increasing frequency because of that major shift in sentiment. If that shift had not occurred, these laws would not be as popular as they are.

Does that automatically translate to similar shifts for MDMA? That is less clear, but at a minimum, there is strong evidence that people do not buy the historical fear mongering that has always cast a shadow on marijuana.

Anecdotally, I know multiple people who now enjoy the occasional edible despite having very anti-drug views in decades past.

Minds are changing.

They probably would, if it was legal.

Don’t give them any ideas

Reply on news.ycombinator.com