Dropout
1 HN recommender · recommended in 3 months, 2017–2019
6:03 · 11M views · Nov 16, 2016
An Adam Ruins Everything segment arguing that US cannabis prohibition grew out of racially and politically motivated agendas under Nixon and earlier, rather than scientific evidence.
Used as a pop-culture shorthand explanation for the political origins of drug laws.
3 comments from Hacker News
+1 and if you need a pop culture version to explain it to you check out this video (adam ruins everything) complete with references
News propaganda didn't just fall off a tree magically. Propaganda is common throughout history to gather supports. Fake news didn't just happen on Facebook. Mainstream media have been criticized for all forms of malpractices or unfair reporting by misquoting, taking a quote or story out of context, using unauthentic images or using different random parts of a clip to create a story. Is NYT more fair than Fox News? I recently came across a YouTube video called "The Sinter Reason Weed is Illegal" [1]. I am not a historian, but from this video I learned that perhaps the ban of cannabis was perhaps not based on scientific facts at all. The whole ban was just a political move by provoking racism to rally up against the Blacks and the Mexicans. After the 2016 Election, I started to follow a Facebook Page called "Now This Politics" (NTP). Given the page's political nature, most of the stories are about the current administration. I started to get more news stories from Facebook. A few days ago United Airlines was reported to have barred girls from boarding a flight because of their leggings. NTP created a video about the incident. I felt UA was being ridiculous. Legging isn't the most inappropriate dress code. I didn't approve UA's defense. But when I went to the comment section, I started to change my stand on the issue because apparently these girls got their tickets via an employee discount program, for which the ticket holder is subjected to a stricter dress code. While I don't
Looking at your original comment I see that message clearly now. I still wouldn't want that to constitute PC. What if I had a brown bag full of non-psychedelic mushrooms? The cops would roll up on me and search me? Worse yet, what if I inadvertently picked a psychedelic mushroom, not knowing what is is and telling myself I would ID it with a spore print at home later. Now I'm looking at prison time? I don't want my taxes to go to keeping those cases in prison. We've kind of gone off on a tangent from the original article which I am OK with. It will be a hard sell for me to agree to widening the definition of what constitutes PC. From my basic understanding being in a place or doing something is the definition of circumstantial evidence. I also just realized that I am biased in this conversation because I believe that they should be legal. If you read the studies linked from [LINK] the potential physiological medical benefits have been shrouded from study by the international agreements that were fabricated by agenda driven politics: this video To summarize: 1. Old guy was poaching. Nice story and all but there was a sign. 2. No I do not want to expand the definition of what constitutes PC 3. I have bias in this conversation because I think mushrooms should not be categorized as an illegal drug.