Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
An illegal substance sold legally. (latimes.com)
80 points by mattmaroon on May 18, 2010 | hide | past | favorite | 31 comments



Good thing they didn't have network TV in 1933. Can you imagine the attack ads against supporters of the 21st Amendment? $congressman is soft on booze! He supports drunkards who destroy families and abuse your children! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


Those type of widespread attack ads certainly existed in 1933. Candidates would often run grass roots mobs (for lack of a better word) that would spread that type of dirt (and some occasional violence). I've some some interesting pictures of presidential campaigns in Denver in the 20's and 30's that look suspiciously like a modern day attack ad (with less mushroom clouds).

Politics seems not to have changed much I reckon:)


Yeah, it's not that political tactics have gotten dirtier, it's just that distribution has gotten easier.


I would argue that politics have actually gotten cleaner (in the US). Violence used to be commonplace in political races, and now are virtually unheard of.


Physical violence has, but I've still heard all too many reports of vandalism in political races and not just from the US media. I'm a brit living in Canada and I've heard reports of vandalism in political races in the UK, CA and US; incidentally I've only heard it being committed on left wing supporters.


incidentally I've only heard it being committed on left wing supporters.

I don't know why that is, because I've heard of plenty of harassment and vandalism against conservative supporters (or were they opposed?) of California's Prop 8 as well, but it didn't get much media coverage. I don't believe one can say that either liberals or conservatives are more "enlightened" overall, at least in matters of raw politics.


This article is based on Okrent's "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition". There's a fascinating interview with the author on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1266133...

Specifically, the commentary on the prohibition for racial profiling was especially interesting. With 9% of black adults under correctional supervision [1], a significant portion of whom are there for drug-related charges [2], one might argue that the War on Drugs is even closer to the prohibition than this article suggests.

1: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm 2: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64


I had to double check which site I was at, those pages look remarkably similar to most made for AdSense fluff content sites. I wonder just how profitable those pages are.



I actually disabled ad-block out of curiosity.

I don't understand how people browse without it, now.


Most sites don't have ads placed and sized in this obnoxious a manner.


Wow. I installed adblock only a short while ago, and I hadn't noticed how much it improves the browsing experience until you made me disable it out of curiosity too.


I know, it's awful. I almost didn't submit it because of that. I looked around for a print link, even though I hate it when people submit those here, because that was just so bad.

Shame on LA Times really. I'm most definitely not one to begrudge an institution their profits, but this just feels like a bad business decision to me.


That's an archive server, where older articles go to get monetized. You can see what it looks like in a normal template here: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0516-ok...


Then as now, the adaptability of the medical profession was impressive.

To provide better care or to make more money?


Yes.


You must be a programmer.


Guilty as charged.


No, he's an artist.


The author of that wrote http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall-Prohibition/dp/074... which I heard an interesting interview about on NPR.

From that interview I learned that there is a lot about the politics of the day that I didn't know. For instance did you know that the KKK supported the Suffrage movement (giving women the vote) because they believed women would vote for Prohibition, which could be used to target Catholic immigrant groups? (Immigrants were a major target of the KKK at that time.)

I haven't gotten around to getting that book yet, but it is on my list of books to read.


Link is down. Here's another URL that works for me: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0516-ok...


"Take three ounces every hour for stimulant until stimulated."

This is a great story.

Considering how everything you ingest is a drug (affects you both in mind and body) it's interesting how various substances become "dangerous" over time -- and how that can be reversed.


That's a tempting definition of drug, but it's easy to dismiss because then the word would have no meaning. The accepted definition, from m-w.com: a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

Also, I'm not sure what your overall point is. Alcohol abuse still is considered dangerous now. (I say this as someone who drinks socially.) If you want to point out how cultural attitudes change how various substances are regulated, I don't think just "dangerous" expresses that.


That is a problematic definition as well. First, intended by whom? Is alcohol a drug if I drink it to get hammered, and not a drug if I drink it because I'm thirsty? Or is it the intention of the producer that matters, in which case how can any naturally occurring substance be a drug?

Looking past that, wouldn't hair gel or plaster used to make a cast for a broken bone qualify as a drug under that definition?

Maybe the word actually does have less meaning than you suggest. I would suggest the following definition: any substance included on Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act.


Dictionary definitions are typically not scientific definitions in that they are colloquial and potentially ambiguous.

The definition implies that the substance has to enter the body somehow, so hair gel and plaster are out. As for intention, there's potential ambiguity, but for the most part we know what it means. Word definitions aren't programs, we can settle for "good enough." But the parents definition was, to me, obviously too inclusive.


All poisons are regulated, to stop terrorist or other attacks, or to limit suicide attempts. Alcohol, Pot, Cigarettes, Cocaine are all drugs that are regulated in some way.

The amount of regulation they receive is mainly based on their potency.

In some ways I am against the legalization of pot, although I agree with a number of points for it. I can not help but agree that moving this from the underground is a good thing. But pot is also a great demotivator, experience with a great number of people who smoke it has shown me.


If you rank drugs based on potency, alcohol and tobacco are above marijuana and just below heroin and cocaine. Drugs like MDMA and LSD rank even lower. I find that the level of regulation has a lot more to do with the existence of moral panics throughout history targeted at particular drugs, paired with class and racial distinctions (i.e. the legal distinction between powder cocaine and crack).


Actually, alcohol has therapeutic value for angina.


that's why you guys have 5Liter bottles of booze on walgreens and CVS then.


that's why you guys have 5Liter bottles of booze on walgreens and CVS then.





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: